tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70975827919357982042024-03-16T03:09:54.715+02:00dianoigo: biblical studies, theology, church history and moreThis blog is named after a Greek word used in the New Testament which means "to open one's mind; to cause to understand a thing." Content consists mainly of articles on biblical studies, theology and Church history written at a semi-technical level. A special emphasis is critical engagement with Christadelphian theology and history. This is part of the www.dianoigo.com website.Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.comBlogger246125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-3503679779295614112024-01-05T12:35:00.005+02:002024-01-05T14:57:46.945+02:00Jesus Christ as True God in 1 John 5:20<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><p><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. Introduction</a></b><br /><b><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. Syntactical Considerations</a></b><br /><b><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. Contextual Considerations</a></b><br /><b> <a href="#osec3_1" name="otit3_1">3.1. The True God in Scripture</a></b><br /><b> <a href="#osec3_2" name="otit3_2">3.2. Jesus as "true," "life," and "God" in Johannine Literature</a></b><br /><b> <a href="#osec3_3" name="otit3_3">3.3. The Unity of Father and Son in Johannine Literature</a></b><br /><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. Conclusion</a></b><br /></p><p><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. Introduction</a></b> </p><blockquote>20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.</blockquote><p></p></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">So reads 1 John 5:20-21 (NRSV). The final sentence of v. 20, however, immediately raises a question in the reader's mind: <i>who </i>is the true God and eternal life? The answer to this question is disputed among New Testament scholars. However, the majority view is that this statement is about Jesus. As Hills explains,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>Considerations of grammar suggest that the οὗτος in 5:20f refers back to its immediate antecedent, i.e., to "Jesus Christ" in v 20e, and on this and other grounds the majority of modern scholars with more or less confidence holds that the statement "this is the true God and eternal life" is a christological affirmation.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What are the considerations that lead most scholars to conclude that this statement is about Jesus? In this article we will look at the syntax of the verse and situate it against the broader context of 1 John and the other Johannine literature.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. Syntactical Considerations</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In Greek, following the NA28 critical text, 1 John 5:20 reads (with clause f in bold, and transliteration beneath),</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="width: 100%;">οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν, καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. <b>οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.</b> </div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="width: 100%;"><i>oidamen de hoti ho huios tou theou hēkei kai dedōken hēmin dianoian, hina ginōskōmen ton alēthinon, kai esmen en tō alēthinō, en tō huiō autou Iēsou Christō. houtos estin ho alēthinos theos kai zōē aiōnios.</i></div></blockquote><div style="width: 100%;">The one significant textual variant is in 1 John 5:20c, where some manuscripts read <i>hina ginōskōmen ton alēthinon theon</i> ("so that we may know the true God" instead of "so that we may know the true one").</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">The question we seek to answer in this article boils down to identifying the referent of οὗτός (<i>houtos</i>). This is the proximal demonstrative pronoun, equivalent to "this" in English. It can be contrasted with ἐκεῖνος (<i>ekeinos</i>), the distal demonstrative pronoun, equivalent to "that" in English. "This" (like οὗτός) points out something proximal (close to the speaker), while "that" (like ἐκεῖνος) points out something distal (away from the speaker).</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">Greek demonstrative pronouns contain more information than English ones. οὗτός has a case (nominative) and gender (masculine) that provide clues to its meaning. The nominative case indicates that οὗτός is the subject of the sentence. The masculine gender indicates that the referent is either a male person ("this one") or a masculine noun (which, in Greek, could denote an impersonal thing, such as κόσμος [<i>kosmos</i>, "world"]). There are no impersonal masculine nouns that occur explicitly in the immediate context to which οὗτός could plausibly refer, which leaves us with three possibilities: either οὗτός refers to "the true one" (NRSV: "him who is true"), or it refers to "his Son Jesus Christ," or it refers to some unspecified thing ("this"), in which case οὗτός is masculine so that it agrees in gender with ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> The third option is highly unlikely for two reasons: (i) it is unlikely that a monotheistic writer would be comfortable saying that any abstraction "<i>is </i>the true God," even if this is meant metaphorically (e.g., <i>knowing</i> the true one and his Son "<i>is</i> the true God"). (ii) Unlike the comparable statement in John 17:3, there is no explicit statement giving content to "this." Hence, we will limit our attention to the first two possibilities: that the subject of 1 John 5:20f is the Father or the Son.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">It must be stressed either of these referents is possible, and therefore we have before us a syntactic ambiguity, which may have been deliberate or accidental on the author's part. That οὗτός is a <i>proximal</i> demonstrative supports the referent being the <i>nearest</i> antecedent, "his Son Jesus Christ" (as emphasised by Hills above). However, while the nearest antecedent of οὗτός is <i>usually </i>the referent (including in the Johannine writings), there are counterexamples. For instance, in John 4:47 ("This one, having heard that Jesus had come from Judea..."), οὗτός refers to a royal official, but its nearest antecedent is actually the official's ill son. 2 John 7 is another commonly cited counterexample.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> It should be noted that, in such counterexamples, the referent is generally made clear in the context.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">In 1 John 5:20, "The Son of God" is also the subject of the preceding sentence ("And we know that the Son of God has come...") So the Son is more "proximal" with respect to the writer's use of οὗτός in two respects: he is the subject of the preceding sentence and he is the nearest antecedent noun.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">Concerning the usage of οὗτός in Johannine literature, Greek grammarian Daniel B. Wallace points out,</div><div style="width: 100%;"><blockquote>The demonstrative pronoun οὗτός, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner. Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which οὗτός has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son. What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>It may be worth noting that, while God (the Father) is nowhere else referred to as "this one" (οὗτός) in the Gospel and Epistles of John, which Jesus commonly is, God is referred to several times using the distal demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος ("that one": John 1:33; 5:19; 5:37; 5:38; 6:29; 8:42).<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> This suggests that, due to the Father's transcendence, the writer may not be comfortable referring to the Father using a proximal demonstrative pronoun like οὗτός.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. Contextual Considerations</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit3_1" name="osec3_1">3.1. The True God in Scripture</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>All biblical references to a "true God" (including 1 John 5:20-21) set this God in explicit or implicit contrast with idols or false gods. There are three such passages in the Greek Old Testament (2 Chronicles 15:3 cp. 15:8;<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> Isaiah 65:15-16 LXX cp. 65:11;<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> Wisdom of Solomon 12:27 cp. 12:24).<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> This usage continues in the New Testament. Paul the Apostle commends the Thessalonian church, writing,</div><div><blockquote>For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God (θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ), and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming. (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 NRSV)</blockquote></div><div>Coming to the Johannine literature, in Jesus' "high-priestly prayer" in the Gospel of John, he addresses the Father as "the only true God":</div><div><blockquote>And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν), and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3 NRSV)</blockquote></div><div>That Jesus refers to himself here in the third person as "Jesus Christ" (which is without parallel in the Gospels) may indicate that this statement reflects an confessional or liturgical formula used in the Johannine community.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> There is no explicit mention of idols or false gods in the context, but the word "only" (μόνος, <i>monos</i>) is an implicit polemic against any other claimants to deity. The adjective ἀληθινός (<i>alēthinos</i>) is also implicitly polemical; in the above passages, it probably means "genuine" or "real,"<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> standing in contrast to other claimants to deity who are not genuine gods but counterfeits. The implicit polemic is similar to that in the more common biblical expression "living God."</div><div><br /></div><div>Turning to the christological implications of the phrase "true God," both 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 and John 17:3 name Jesus alongside the true God as one distinct from him. However, the statement of John 17:3 also equates eternal life with knowing <i>both </i>the only true God and Jesus Christ, which is remarkable. Would it be contradictory or complementary for the Johannine writer to call Jesus "the true God and eternal life" in 1 John 5:20, given what is written in John 17:3? Answering this question requires a review of Johannine christology, focusing on the terms "true," "life," and "God."</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit3_2" name="osec3_2">3.2. Jesus as "true," "life," and "God" in Johannine Literature</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Jesus is referred to repeatedly using the adjective ἀληθινός in the Gospel of John. He is "the true light" (1:9); "the true bread from heaven" (6:32); "the true vine" (15:1). In the Book of Revelation—which, admittedly, most NT scholars attribute to a different author than the Gospel and Epistles of John—Jesus refers to himself as "the true one" (ὁ ἀληθινός, <i>ho al</i><i>ēthinos</i>) in 3:7 and is later identified in a vision as one called "Faithful and True" (πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, <i>pistos kai al</i><i>ē</i><i>thinos</i>) in 19:11.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the Gospel of John, Jesus is personally "the way and the truth and the life" (14:6) and "the resurrection and the life" (11:25). God is the ultimate source of life, but gave the Son to have life in himself and to give life to whomever he wishes (5:21; 5:26; 6:57). Jesus is the bread of life (6:48) and the living bread (6:51). In Revelation 1:18, Jesus identifies himself as "the living one" (ὁ ζῶν, <i>ho z</i><i>ō</i><i>n</i>). Within 1 John, Jesus seems to be equated with "eternal life" in the somewhat oblique opening paragraph, which—in language reminiscent of John 1—says, "this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us" (1 John 1:2 NRSV).<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> The Son is also identified with "life" in a kind of synonymous parallelism in 1 John 5:12: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (NRSV).</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, Jesus is repeatedly called "God" (θεός, <i>theos</i>) in the Gospel of John. The Word—who is to be identified as Christ <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/02/jesus-christ-in-prologue-of-john-word.html" target="_blank">throughout the Prologue</a>—is called θεός in the Gospel's opening verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1 NRSV). While θεός lacks the article here, its occurrence at the beginning of the clause (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος<i>, theos hēn ho logos</i>) means that it should be understood emphatically (since word order in Greek is used for emphasis). The Word is God-with-God. The Word-Son is <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2017/01/jesus-son-of-god-god-son-or-both.html#mysec3" target="_blank">almost certainly</a><i> </i>called "God" again in John 1:18 (though there is a shadow of doubt on text-critical grounds). Jesus uses the stand-alone formula ἐγὼ εἰμί (<i>egō eimi</i>, "I am he") seven times in the Gospel (4:26; 6:20; 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5-8). In light of the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns_23.html#osec3" target="_blank">Isaianic background</a> against which John frames these sayings (especially those in chapters 8 and 13), its meaning is tantamount to "I am God." This is because Jesus' use of this formula is modeled after God's use thereof in Isaiah 40-55 LXX, where God says "I am he" (ἐγὼ εἰμί) and "I am God" (ἐγὼ [εἰμί] ὁ θεὸς) interchangeably.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>Then, at the Gospel's climax, Thomas addresses the risen Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28). This is probably meant to form an <i>inclusio </i>with the use of <i>theos </i>for the Word in John 1:1,<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> so that the Gospel calls Christ "God" at the beginning and end of the Gospel.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> If so, the use of <i>theos </i>for Jesus in the Johannine literature is not incidental but a central theological claim. </div><div><br /></div><div>The magnitude of Thomas' confession is sometimes dulled in one of two ways: (i) it is claimed that <i>theos </i>is used here in an attenuated sense, or (ii) it is claimed that Thomas' words are not really addressed to Jesus as such but are a recognition that God is at work in him (cf. John 14:9-11).<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> In favour of (i), it is pointed out that men are called "god/s" in Old Testament texts such as Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 82:6, the latter of which is cited by Jesus in this Gospel when defending himself against the charge of "making himself <i>theos</i>" (John 10:33-36). However, Jesus' argument in 10:34-36 is an <i>a fortiori—</i>if even mere men can be called "gods," how much more the Son of God—and thus does not imply an attenuation of <i>theos </i>as applied to Jesus. Furthermore, in these Old Testament texts it is God who assumes the prerogative to address men as "god/s." This is very different from a monotheistic Jew, Thomas, who knows that the <i>Shema </i>declares "the Lord <i>our God</i>, the Lord is one," addressing another man as "<i>my </i>God" (ὁ θεὸς μου, <i>ho theos mou</i>): literally, "the God of me." Interpretation (ii) is no more persuasive. Unlike John 14:9-11, where the declaration "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" is immediately qualified in terms of mutual indwelling, the Gospel does not qualify Thomas' confession in any way. Moreover, Jesus has been referred to as "Lord" five times already in the resurrection narrative, including once as "my Lord" (John 20:2, 13, 18, 20, 25), so it is improbable that "my Lord" is now directed to the Father. The idea that "my Lord" is addressed to the Son and "my God" to the Father-in-the-Son is untenable once one recognises that "my Lord and my God" is a liturgical formula of the form "my X and my Y" used repeatedly in the psalms, where both nouns X and Y always address the same person, God.<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>To summarise, Jesus is called <i>theos </i>multiple times in the Gospel of John, and a close examination of John 20:28 reveals that he is personally addressed here as <i>ho theos </i>in the fullest sense of that term. To describe Jesus as "the true God and eternal life" in 1 John 5:20, therefore, would be consonant with, and not at all at odds with, the theology of the Fourth Gospel. As I. Howard Marshall writes, "it is fitting that at the climax of the Epistle, as at the beginning and climax of the Gospel (Jn. 1:1; 20:28), full deity should be ascribed to Jesus."<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>By comparison, to describe the Father as "the true God" in 1 John 5:20 would of course also be consonant with Johannine theology (since the Father is called "the only true God" in John 17:3), but would also be somewhat redundant given that the Father has been called "the true one" twice already in this verse.<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> To identify the Father as "eternal life" would be theologically appropriate, but less in keeping with Johannine parlance than to identify the Son with "eternal life." The Father is the ultimate source of life, to be sure, but only the Son is explicitly called "life" elsewhere in the Johannine corpus.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit3_3" name="osec3_3">3.3. The Unity of Father and Son in Johannine Literature</a></b></div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Before concluding, it is necessary to comment on a conundrum that arises if we accept the conclusion to which the syntactical and contextual evidence is pointing us, namely that 1 John 5:20f calls Jesus "the true God." How is it that the Father is "the only true God" and yet the Son is also "the true God"?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Of course, providing a definitive, philosophically precise answer to this question would take the Church more than three centuries. This is not our purpose here; we seek only to determine whether there are any proto-Trinitarian hints in the Johannine writings whereby the Father and the Son are identified as in one sense indistinct (and thus one) and in another sense distinct (and thus two).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Firstly, concerning the Gospel of John, there is the famous saying in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one,"<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup> which prompts Jesus' opponents to want to stone him for blasphemy, specifically for "making himself <i>theos</i>" (10:33). Multiple recent studies have emphasised the literary relationship between the <i>Shema </i>(Deuteronomy 6:4) and John 10:30.<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> Lori A. Baron writes,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The significance of this declaration can hardly be overstated: the author invokes the word 'one' (ἕν [<i>hen</i>]) a key word in the Shema, explicitly locating Jesus's identity within the divine אחד [<i>echad</i>]... A potential objection to the idea that John has the Shema in mind here is that Deut 6:4 LXX uses the masculine εἷς [<i>heis</i>] to translate אחד [<i>echad</i>], whereas John employs the neuter ἕν [<i>hen</i>]. But this change is necessitated by grammatical considerations: in the Shema, εἷς [<i>heis</i>] is masculine singular as a predicate nominative of κύριος [<i>kyrios</i>]. εἷς [<i>heis</i>] would be awkward with a compound subject such as ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ [<i>eg</i><i>ō</i><i> kai ho pat</i><i>ē</i><i>r</i>], whereas ἕν [<i>hen</i>] is not awkward...The Evangelist...uses the neuter ἕν [<i>hen</i>], which expresses the idea of one entity. John 10:30
would thus be better translated: 'I and the Father are one thing,' a unity.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">She concludes that</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While 'the Jews' understand
Jesus’ words as a violation of the divine unity, which is embodied in the Shema,
the Evangelist frames his Christology in a way that places Jesus within that unity.<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This notion that the Father and the Son, while distinct persons, are a unity—one God—explains why Jesus is repeatedly called "God" in the Gospel of John, but always in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and acknowledges the deity of the latter. The Word both <i>was with</i> God and <i>was</i> God (John 1:1). Jesus is the only-begotten God in the bosom of the Father (1:18). Thomas calls Jesus "my God" (20:28), but shortly before that, Jesus has described the Father to Mary Magdalene as "my God and your God" (20:17).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Coming to 1 John, scholars have identified a curious phenomenon whereby the author frequently uses verbs and pronouns that are either carelessly or deliberately <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2014/10/like-father-like-son-ambiguous-pronouns.html" target="_blank">ambiguous as to whether they are speaking about the Father or the Son</a>.<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> This likely means that, for the author, while the Father and the glorified Son remain distinct, they are "one" to such an extent that it is not important to clarify which one is in view at every turn.<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup> For Georg Strecker, "the Johannine idea of the unity of the Son with the Father" posited in John 10:30 "can be seen in 1 John in the interchangeability of the personal pronouns":<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">For example, when the author says that "your sins are forgiven on account of his name" (1 John 2:12), is he referring to the name of God (last mentioned in v. 5) or that of Jesus Christ (last mentioned in v. 1)?<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> Again, several pronouns in 3:1-6 and 3:16 seem to refer to Christ; however, Christ has not been mentioned explicitly since 2:24, while God is mentioned thrice in 3:1-2. Finally, in 1 John 5:14, the readers are instructed, "And this is the boldness we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us" (NRSV). This "he" who answers prayer and gives life (as described further in vv. 15-16) seems to be the Son of God, who was the subject of v. 13. On the other hand, it would be more in line with biblical tradition to identify God as the addressee of prayer.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The vagueness seen in references to the Father and the Son in 1 John seems to be a putting into practice of the close unity declared in John 10:30: "Jesus is not saying that he and the Father are a single person, but that together they are one God."<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup> This would explain how the Johannine literature is seemingly comfortable with calling Jesus "the true God" despite his Father being "the only true God."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In view of the foregoing syntactical and contextual considerations, and the wider Johannine theme of the Father and the Son being a unity, we can conclude with Brian J. Wright that 1 John 5:20 is one of the few New Testament texts that, with a "High Degree of Probability," calls Jesus <i>theos</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If we are not convinced by the evidence and instead adopt the minority position that ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς refers to the Father, we must still concede that this verse contains a very significant instance of the epistle's famous ambiguous personal pronouns. This, in a letter that has christological heresy as a central concern (1 John 2:22-24; 4:1-3), suggests that the author is not concerned that his readers would fall into heresy if they identified Jesus as "the true God."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">At the very least, the epistle declines to "walk back" the divine claims about Jesus that had been made in the Gospel of John. More likely, the letter has "doubled down" on the Gospel's divine christology by applying to Jesus the very term used to circumscribe the Father's unique deity in John 17:3, and has thus anticipated the formulation "true God from true God" that would later be used to express the orthodox position.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Julian Hills, "'Little Children, Keep Yourselves from Idols: 1 John 5:21 Reconsidered," <i>Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 </i>(1989): 301. This assessment of the <i>communis opinio</i> is now a bit dated, but none of the scholarship that I've consulted since then suggests that this is no longer the majority view.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Compare αὕτη (<i>haut</i><i>ē</i>) in John 17:3, which is an impersonal proximal demonstrative pronoun that agrees in feminine gender with the noun ζωὴ (<i>zoē</i>): "This is eternal life."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Here, οὗτός refers to deceivers who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, but "Jesus Christ" is the nearest antecedent of οὗτός.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Daniel B. Wallace, <i>Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament </i>(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 327.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> ἐκεῖνος is also used of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Johannine literature.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> "And for many days it has been for Israel without a true god and without a teaching priest and without law. And he will return to the Lord, God of Israel, and he will be found to them... And when he heard these words and the prophecy of Adad the prophet, he was both encouraged and he removed the abominations from all the land of Ioudas and Beniamin and from the cities he had gained possession of in Mount Ephraim, and he renewed the Lord’s altar that was in front of the Lord’s shrine." (2 Chronicles 15:3-4, 8 NETS)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> But to those who are subject to him, a new name shall be called, which shall be blessed on the earth; for they shall bless the true God (τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν), and those who swear on the earth shall swear by the true God, for they shall forget their first affliction, and it shall not come up into their heart. (Isaiah 65:15cd-16 NETS)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> For they went astray on the paths of error, taking as gods the most despised and loathsome of animals... For through those animals at which in their suffering they became incensed, which they had thought to be gods, being punished by means of them, they saw and recognized as the true God (θεὸν ἀληθῆ) the one whom before they denied knowing; therefore the utmost condemnation came upon them. (Wisdom of Solomon 12:24ab, 27 NETS)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> "Although John has Jesus speak of himself in the third person, for example, as 'the Son,' it is anomalous that Jesus should call himself 'Jesus Christ.' Elsewhere in the Gospel the name occurs in the Prologue (i 17), a Christian hymn. This verse [John 17:3] is clearly an insertion into the text of Jesus' prayer, an insertion probably reflecting a confessional or liturgical formula of the Johannine church" (Raymond E. Brown, <i>The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI </i>[New York: Doubleday, 1970], 741) .</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> "Of God in contrast to other deities, who are not real" (BDAG, 43).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> The opening verses of 1 John are a notorious <i>crux interpretum</i>, since their main subject is referred to with neuter relative pronouns, which cannot refer either to a person or to nouns that feature prominently such as <i>logos </i>(masculine) or <i>zōē </i>(feminine). It is clear that the Christ-event is being described, in some way. Raymond E. Brown describes the syntactical problem and concludes, "Overall, the explanation that best fits the evidence is that the 'what' is to be equated with no specific noun in the Prologue, but refers to the whole career of Jesus, with the neuter functioning <i>comprehensively to cover the person, the words, and the works</i>" (<i>The Epistles of John</i> [New York: Doubleday, 1982], 154).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> Compare Isaiah 43:10 to 43:11, 45:18-19 to 45:21-22; 46:4 to 46:9.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Raymond E. Brown defends the translation "The Word was God" for John 1:1c, stating, "This reading is reinforced when one remembers that in the Gospel as it now stands, the affirmation of i 1 is almost certainly meant to form an inclusion with xx 28, where at the end of the Gospel Thomas confesses Jesus as "My God" (<i>ho theos mou</i>) (<i>The Gospel according to John I-XII </i>(New York: Doubleday, 1966), 5).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> Bear in mind that the epilogue in chapter 21 was probably added in a later edition of the Gospel.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> The latter interpretation seems to have support from Ernst Haenchen: "the Father is visible in Jesus for those who believe" (<i>John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 7-21</i> [trans. Robert W. Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 211).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> See "my God and my Lord" (Psalm 35:23); "my King and my God" (Psalm 5:2; 44:4; 84:3); "my God and my Saviour" (Psalm 61:3, 7 LXX).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> <i>The Epistles of John</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 254 n. 47.)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Raymond E. Brown agrees with Schnackenburg's earlier argument that "the second sentence of 5:20 has meaning only if it refers to Jesus; it would be tautological if it referred to God the Father" ("Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?", <i>Theological Studies 26 </i>[1965]: 558. The view that οὗτος refers to "the true One" "makes the text rather tautologous: 'we are in him who is true...He is the true God'" (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John</i>, 254 n. 47.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> The NRSV has, "The Father and I are one," but the translation given here is truer to the Greek, which has ἐγὼ in the emphatic first position.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> Lori A. Baron, <i>The </i>Shema<i> in John’s Gospel Against its Backgrounds in Second Temple Judaism</i> (PhD Dissertation, Duke University, 2015), subsequently published as <i>The </i>Shema<i> in John's Gospel </i>(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022); Brury Eko Saputra, <i>The </i>Shema<i> and John 10: The Importance of the Shema Framework in Understanding the Oneness Language in John 10</i> (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> <i>The </i>Shema <i>in John's Gospel</i>, 349-50.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> <i>The </i>Shema <i>in John's Gospel</i>, 360.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> Brown, commenting on the specific case of 1 John 2:25, asks, "Does the 'he' (<i>autos</i>) who makes the promise refer to God or to Christ, or even (by intentional vagueness) to both? ... In a previous instance of ambiguity (2:3a) I opted for God, but each case must be decided on its own merits" (<i>The Epistles of John</i>, 358). Judith M. Lieu speaks of "the frequent ambiguity as to whether 'he' (<i>autos</i>) refers to God or to Jesus" (<i>I, II & III John: A Commentary </i>[Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008], 215). Terry Griffith notes that "the use of pronouns in 1 John is often so ambiguous that commentators are frequently divided as to whether Jesus or God is the referent" (<i>Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John </i>[London: Sheffield Academic, 2002], 75). According to D. Moody Smith, "in 1 John there is often a question of which, the Father or the Son, is the antecedent. This is a perennial and difficult problem" ("The Historical Figure of Jesus in 1 John," in J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe & A. Katherine Grieb, eds., <i>The Word leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays</i> [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 313).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> "It is quite clear that for John the Father and Son are distinct beings, although they belong so closely together that on occasion, as we have seen, it is not clear to which of them he is referring." (Marshall, <i>The Epistles of John</i>, 255 n. 48).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> (<i>The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John</i> [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996], 193 n. 44). He gives as examples 1 John 1:5, 6, 7, 10; 2:3-6, 25, 27-28; 3:24; 4:13, 19, 21; 5:6, 14, 15, 20. In similar fashion, he writes, "the author leaves the readers in a state of unclarity about the application of personal pronouns and words of attribution, because he cannot admit any alternative between christology and theology: God is in Christ!" (<i>The Johannine Letters</i>, 82).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> The notion that God will act mercifully for his name's sake is common in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g., 1 Kingdoms 12:22 LXX; Psalm 22:3 LXX; 105:8 LXX; Ezekiel 36:21-22); yet in the NT it is primarily the name of Jesus by which salvation occurs. Moreover, while "God" is the nearest antecedent that was named explicitly, Jesus seems to be in view in 2:6 ("whoever says, 'I abide in him,' ought to walk just as he walked.")</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> Richard Bauckham, <i>Jesus and the God of Israel: </i>God Crucified <i>and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 104.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> Brian J. Wright, "Jesus as ΘΕΟΣ: A Textual Examination," in <i>Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament Manuscripts, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence</i>, ed. Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011), 266.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-2404515131459965122023-09-24T15:01:00.008+02:002023-09-24T15:09:45.055+02:00Early Jewish-Christian Christology in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The <i>Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus </i>(<i>DJP</i>) is a little-known early Christian text that describes a theological dialogue between Jason (a Jewish Christian) and Papiscus (a non-Christian Jew). It does not survive except for a few fragments and summaries preserved by later authors, but is believed by scholars to have been used as a source by later Christian-Jewish dialogue texts, starting with Justin Martyr's <i>Dialogue with Trypho </i>(c. 160 C.E.).<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> The earliest mention of <i>DJP</i> is in Origen's <i>Against Celsus</i> 4.52-53 (written 249 C.E.). The exact title Origen gives to the work is "A Controversy between Jason and Papiscus about Christ".<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> Origen reports that Celsus had attacked this work in his ante-Christian polemic, which scholars date to c. 176-180 C.E.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">John of Scythopolis (6th century) ascribes the work to Aristo(n) of Pella (an attribution widely accepted by modern scholars), while noting that Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) had attributed the work to St. Luke the Evangelist.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> Eusebius of Caesarea names Aristo of Pella as a source for his knowledge of the Bar Kochba Revolt (132-135 C.E.),<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> for which reason scholars typically date <i>DJP </i>to c. 140 C.E. (later than the Bar Kochba Revolt, but early enough to have influenced Justin Martyr and Celsus).<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div>
<div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Scholarly knowledge of <i>DJP </i>has grown significantly since the discovery and publication in the early 21st century of a fragment of the text preserved in its original language, Greek.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> Known as the Sinaiticus Fragment (due to its discovery at St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai desert), it is contained in a sermon delivered by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, on 1 January 635, who names the "Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus" before quoting from it at length. Sophronius' sermon asserts that St. Luke the Evangelist wrote <i>DJP</i>. Celsus Africanus (not Origen's opponent) referred to the author of <i>DJP </i>as a Hebrew Christian,<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> which modern scholars such as Lawrence Lahey accept.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">That the Jewish Christian author of <i>DJP </i>held a high Christology (i.e., affirmed Christ's preexistence and divinity) is evident from the Sinaiticus Fragment and other surviving fragments. The Sinaiticus Fragment includes the following passage:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Papiscus said, “I would like to learn for what cause you
honor the first day after the Sabbath.” Jason answered, “In this way, God
commanded this through Moses, saying: ‘Behold! I am making the last things
just as the first!’ The last [day of the week] is the Sabbath, but day one after
the Sabbath is first, for on it, by the word of God, the beginning of the entire
universe took place, as also the scripture of Moses declares, just as God
spoke, ‘let there be light and there was light.’ The Logos which came forth
from God and made the light was Christ, the son of God through whom all
things came to be.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup></blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Thus, <i>DJP </i>evidently held a Logos Christology similar to that found in the prologue of the Gospel of John. Writing at the end of the fourth century, St. Jerome, in his <i>Hebrew Questions on Genesis </i>, reports that <i>DJP </i>offered a reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 that begins with "In the Son" rather than "In the beginning":</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">'In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.' The majority
believe, as it is written in <i>The Dispute Between Jason and Papiscus</i>, and as
Tertullian in his book <i>Against Praxeas</i> contends, and as Hilary also asserts in
the exposition of a certain psalm, that in the Hebrew it is '[i]n the son, God
made heaven and earth.' The fact of the matter proves that this is a mistake.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Although St. Jerome is rightly dismissive of this rendition of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1, the point is that it shows that <i>DJP </i>held a pre-existence Christology in which the Son was present at creation. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, Lawrence Lahey observes that multiple Christian-Jewish dialogues from the fifth and sixth centuries (the <i>Acts of Sylvester </i>and the <i>Dialogue of Timothy the Christian and Aquila the Jew</i>) contain a similar passage in which a Jew offers objections to Christ's divinity on the grounds that the frailties of corporeal existence are unbefitting of God. Lahey notes the resemblance of this passage to material in Anastasius the Sinaite's <i>Hodegos </i>14 (c. 685 C.E.), who attributes the objections to Philo of Alexandria in a disputation with "Mnason", a disciple of the apostles. Noting that "Mnason" and "Jason" are variant forms of the same name in Greek NT manuscripts of Acts 21:16, that Papiscus is called an Alexandrian Jew (like Philo) by Celsus Africanus, and that Anastasius was probably working from memory in the Sinai desert without access to books, Lahey argues that Anastasius "likely quotes a Jewish reply from [DJP]".<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> The parallel passage in the <i>Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila </i>5.12-17 reads thus:<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(Aquila said:) For concerning this Jesus, just as his memoirs contain, in those you call Gospels, we find from where he is, and his parents with him, and how is this one God? But is God suckled or does he grow and become strong? And I will say that which Luke says concerning him. For the point now is concerning this one who also fled when John was beheaded by Herod, and then was handed over by his own disciple, and bound, and mocked, and scourged, and spat upon, and was crucified, and was buried, but even first also hungered, and thirsted, and was tempted by Satan. Does God submit to these things done by men? But who can see God? Let me not say that he was also handled, and suffered so many things which indeed it is impossible for God to suffer these things; but also sour wine was drunk, and he was fed gall, and was struck on his head with a rod, and was crowned with thorns, and finally was sentenced to death, and was crucified with thieves. I am astonished. How are you not ashamed saying that God himself entered a womb of a woman and was born? For if he was born, he did not then exist before eternity, but also presently where is he?"<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">If Lahey is correct that the above paraphrases an objection from Papiscus originally found in <i>DJP</i>, the substance of the objection implies that the Hebrew Christian apologist Jason was defending a Christology of divine incarnation.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">To conclude, then, the surviving fragments of and references to the <i>Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus </i>provide evidence that a Jewish Christian apologist, writing within living memory of the time of the apostles, defended a divine preexistence Christology. It adds an additional nail in the coffin of the idea, popular among unitarian apologists today, that incarnational Christology was a product of Gentile imaginations such as that of Justin Martyr.</div><br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Oskar Skarsaune argues at length for Justin's dependence on <i>DJP</i> (<i>The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition</i> [Leiden: Brill, 1987], 234-42).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Henry Chadwick, trans. <i>Contra Celsum </i>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 227.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> François Bovon and John M. Duffy, "A New Greek Fragment from Ariston of Pella's <i>Dialogue of Justin and Papiscus</i>", <i>Harvard Theological Review 105 </i>(2012): 457-65.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> See discussion in Harry Tolley, "The Jewish–Christian Dialogue Jason
and Papiscus in Light of the Sinaiticus
Fragment", <i>Harvard Theological Review 114 </i>(2021): 1-26.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> <i>Church History </i>4.6.3.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Lawrence Lahey, "Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin", in Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik (eds.), <i>Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries</i> (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 581-639.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> See Bovon and Duffy, "New Greek Fragment"; Tolley, "Jewish-Christian Dialogue".</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> "That noble, memorable, and glorious Dispute occurred between Jason, a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew; the obstinate heart of the
Jew was softened by the admonition and gentle chiding of the Hebrew, and
the teaching of Jason on the giving of the Holy Spirit was victorious in the
heart of Papiscus." (Celsus Africanus, <i>Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Iudaica Incredulitate</i>, trans. Tolley, "Jewish-Christian Dialogue", 23.)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> "It was written by a Jewish believer, for in contrast to all known dialogues through the sixth century, the Christian participant (Jason), is said to be a Hebrew Christian... If JP had survived, it would be an important source of Jewish Christian theology and of its view of and arguments towards other non-believing Jews" ("<span style="text-align: justify;">Evidence for Jewish Believers", 585-86).</span></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> trans. Tolley, "Jewish-Christian Dialogue", 25.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> trans. Tolley, "Jewish-Christian Dialogue", 22.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> "Evidence for Jewish Believers, 589-91, 601-603. Lahey makes the argument at greater length in another work to which I do not have access ("Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish-Christian Debate in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila", <i>Journal of Jewish Studies 51</i> (2000): 281-96.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> I could not find an English translation of the relevant portion of Anastasius' <i>Hodegos </i>14, and don't trust myself to try and translate 7th-century Greek. The Greek text and a Latin translation can be viewed at <a href="https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=pccUAAAAQAAJ&pg=GBS.PA243&hl=en&q=mnason" target="_blank"><i>Patrologia Graecae</i> 89.244-48</a>. The substance of the passage is basically the same, consisting of objections to the notion that God became incarnate and thus subjected himself to human weaknesses such as hunger, thirst, bleeding, and death.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> trans. Lahey, "Evidence for Jewish Believers", 602 n. 100.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-49391086764521563162023-07-12T21:57:00.000+02:002023-07-12T21:57:04.755+02:00The Crucified Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 2:8): A Pauline Image of God Incarnate<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, Paul writes:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Now wisdom is what we speak to the mature, wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age who are perishing, but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age understood; for, had they understood it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. (author's translation)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">My past interest in this text mainly concerned the term "the rulers of this age," the identity of whom (transcendent, human, or both) is disputed.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> However, as I was recently reading R. B. Jamieson's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220521220844id_/https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F2325EB9B127128A2C6E562342FBE0CF/S0028688519000341a.pdf/div-class-title-1-corinthians-15-28-and-the-grammar-of-paul-s-christology-div.pdf" target="_blank">excellent article</a> on the Christological implications of 1 Corinthians 15:28,<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> I was struck by his observations about the paradoxical nature of this verse. It is one of the few places in the New Testament where Christ's <i>divinity</i> and Christ's <i>crucifiability</i> are juxtaposed, and in that respect, it is perhaps the biblical text that comes closest to speaking of God dying for us. As Jamieson puts it, 1 Corinthians 2:8 speaks of "a single agent, one 'who', who
has a twofold manner of existence, two 'whats'. One 'what' warrants Christ’s identification as the one true God; the other renders him crucifiable."<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The crucifiability aspect is obvious enough, but no doubt some readers will take issue with the contention that this passage identifies Christ as the one true God. Jamieson is making this inference on the basis of the full picture of Christ that emerges from 1 Corinthians, such as Paul's partitioning of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)—and partitioning of roles in creation—between the Father and Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and his ascription of scriptural statements about the divine Lord to Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:31 and 10:26. However, the term "the Lord of glory" (τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης) in 1 Corinthians 2:8 deserves special attention.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This exact phrase occurs nowhere in the Septuagint; nor is it a translation of a phrase from the Hebrew Bible. However, if we ask the question, "What is a learned Jew like Paul likely to have meant by 'the Lord of glory'?" a conclusive answer emerges.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Firstly, two psalms refer to God as "the King of glory" (LXX, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης) and "the God of glory" (LXX, ὁ θεὸς τῆς δόξης), respectively, and both of these psalms also refer to God as "Lord" (κύριος). Of course, "Lord" (κύριος) and "King" (βασιλεύς) are similar in meaning, with both titles denoting one having dominion and rulership. The title "King of glory" occurs five times in Psalm 23:7-10 LXX (24:7-10 MT):</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"> 7 Raise the gates, O rulers of yours! </div><div style="width: 100%;"> And be raised up, O perpetual gates! </div><div style="width: 100%;"> And the King of glory shall enter. </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 8 Who is this King of glory? </div><div style="width: 100%;"> The Lord, strong and powerful, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> the Lord, powerful in battle. </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 9 Raise the gates, O rulers of yours! </div><div style="width: 100%;"> And be raised up, O perpetual gates! </div><div style="width: 100%;"> And the King of glory shall enter. </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 10 Who is this King of glory? </div><div style="width: 100%;"> The Lord of hosts, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> he is the King of glory. (New English Translation of the Septuagint)</div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What makes Psalm 23(24) particularly relevant to Paul's phrase "the Lord of glory" in 1 Corinthians 2:8, however, is that Paul quotes Psalm 23:1 LXX ("the earth and its fullness are the Lord's") later in the letter, in 10:26, where he almost certainly understands this "Lord" to be Christ.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Psalm 28:1-4 LXX reads,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"> 1 Bring to the Lord, O divine sons, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> bring to the Lord glory and honor. </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 2 Bring to the Lord glory for his name; </div><div style="width: 100%;"> do obeisance to the Lord in his holy court. </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 3 The Lord’s voice is over the waters; </div><div style="width: 100%;"> the God of glory thundered, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> the Lord, over many waters, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> 4 the Lord’s voice in strength, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> the Lord’s voice in magnificence. (NETS)</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">The divine title "the Lord of glory" is commensurate with the language of both of these two psalms, even if the exact phrase does not occur. And, of course, the broader association of glory with God (including the phrase "the glory of the Lord") is ubiquitous in the Jewish Scriptures.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">Besides this, the Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic text <i>1 Enoch—</i>a composite text containing materials dating from several centuries B.C. to the first century A.D.—refers to God as "the Lord of glory" repeatedly, showing that the use of this phrase as a divine title was established and current among Paul's Jewish contemporaries. The translations below are from the <i>Hermeneia </i>translation of Nickelsburg and VanderKam.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> </div><div style="width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="width: 100%;">Then I blessed the Lord of glory and said, 'Blessed is the judgment of righteousness and blessed are you, O Lord of majesty and righteousness, who are Lord of eternity.' (<i>1 Enoch </i>22.14)</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">And he answered me and said, 'This high mountain that you saw, whose peak is like the throne of God, is the seat where the Great Holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit, when he descends to visit the earth in goodness... Then I blessed the God of glory, the King of eternity, who has prepared such things for people (who are) righteous, and has created them and promised to give (them) to them. (<i>1 Enoch </i>25.3, 7)</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">Here the godless will bless the Lord of glory, the King of eternity... Then I blessed the Lord of glory, and his glory I made known and praised magnificently. (<i>1 Enoch </i>27.3, 5)</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">And when I saw, I blessed—and I shall always bless—the Lord of glory, who has wrought great and glorious wonders, to show his great deeds to his angels and to the spirits of human beings, so that they might see the work of his might and glorify the deeds of his hands and bless him forever. (<i>1 Enoch </i>36.4)</div><div style="width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="width: 100%;">The <a href="https://pseudepigrapha.org/docs/text/1En" target="_blank">Codex Panopolitanus Greek manuscript</a> of 1 Enoch has τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης—the exact phrase used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8—in 22.14, 27.3, and 27.5.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">The above quotations are all from the <i>Book of the Watchers </i>(<i>1 Enoch </i>1-36). Two other distinct compositions within <i>1 Enoch </i>refer to God as the Lord of glory—the <i>Book of Parables </i>(cf. <i>1 Enoch </i>40.3, 63.2) and the <i>Dream Visions </i>(cf. <i>1 Enoch </i>83.8)—while the <i>Book of the Luminaries </i>uses the phrase "the Lord of eternal glory" (<i>1 Enoch </i>75.3) and "the great Lord, the king of glory" (<i>1 Enoch </i>81.3).</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">That the phrase "the Lord of glory" is used in <i>1 Enoch </i>in close association with references to God's kingship and the phrase "the God of glory" (<i>1 Enoch </i>25.7) suggests that the title "the Lord of glory" is adapted from Psalms 24 and/or 29.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">Thus, we have evidence that Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic texts called God "the Lord of glory," drawing on Psalm 24 and/or 29, and we have evidence that Paul understood Christ as the "Lord" of Psalm 24 (23 LXX). Thus, the most reasonable interpretation is that when Paul called Christ "the Lord of glory" in an apocalyptic context in 1 Corinthians 2:8, he meant to refer to Christ as the divine Lord of these psalms.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The juxtaposition of divine Lord and crucified one is Christologically significant, not only because of its inherent paradox, but also because it demonstrates that Paul understood Christ to have been the divine Lord <i>prior to his resurrection and exaltation</i>. This is important, because some interpreters of Pauline texts such as Philippians 2:5-11 assert that Jesus became "Lord" (in the sense of bearer of the divine Name and its prerogatives) only after his resurrection, as a reward from God for his faithfulness unto death. In light of 1 Corinthians 2:8, this reading of Paul's Christology is untenable: Christ was already the Lord of glory when he was crucified. "God highly exalted him and graciously granted him the name that is above every name" (Phil. 2:9) does not refer to a quasi-divinisation of a hitherto non-divine Jesus, but to a reversal of the downward trajectory outlined in vv. 6-8. God publicly vindicates the man Jesus and orders the world to worship him as YHWH (Phil. 2:10-11 cp. Isaiah 45:22-23). Similar reasoning applies to Romans 1:3-4, which some might interpret to mean that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection, though we know from other Pauline texts that this was not Paul's view.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In conclusion, in writing in 1 Corinthians 2:8 that the rulers of this age "crucified the Lord of glory," Paul expresses and brings together Christ's humanity and divinity in a bold and striking manner. The notion of the divine Lord <i>dying</i>, on a cross no less, is a paradox that Paul understood would be regarded as offensive or foolish to many in his day, as it is to many in ours.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> "Opinions differ on the precise identity of these rulers. Are these rulers the unseen demonic forces of this world, or simply the worldly rulers, who put Jesus to death? Is there a dual reference, both to earthly rulers and to the demonic forces that inspire them? Whatever the identity of the rulers, the outcome remains the same." (Mark Taylor, <i>1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture</i> [Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2014], 88); "scholars are undecided as to whether he is referring to spiritual rulers or earthly rulers" (Adam G. White, <i>Where is the Wise Man? Graeco-Roman Education as a Background to the Divisions in 1 Corinthians 1-4 </i>[PhD Dissertation, Macquarie University, 2013], 153).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> R. B. Jamieson, "1 Corinthians 15.28 and the Grammar of Paul's Christology," <i>New Testament Studies 66 </i>(2020): 187-207.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> "1 Corinthians 15.28," 198.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Jamieson writes, "This ‘Lord’ is the same Lord whom
Paul warns the Corinthians not to provoke in 10.22, in language about YHWH borrowed from Deut 32.21. How might they provoke him? By partaking of the cup and table ‘of the Lord’, and also the cup and table of demons (10.21). Why are these
two commensalities incommensurable? Because the Lord’s cup and table enact
communal participation in the blood and body of Christ (10.16). The ‘Lord’ in
view throughout is Christ. The Lord at whose table the Corinthians feast is the
Lord who owns all things because he created all things (cf. 8.6). In 1 Cor 10.26,
Paul identifies Christ as the Lord whom Ps 24.1 praises as possessor of all
because he is the creator of all" (Jamieson, "1 Corinthians 15.28," 195-96).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, <i>1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation </i>(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> The Book of the Watchers was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but was translated into Greek in antiquity. At 25.3, this manuscript has ὁ μέγας κύριος, ὁ ἅγιος τῆς δόξης ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ αἰῶνος ("the Great Lord, the Holy One of Glory, the King of eternity"), and at 25.7, τὸν θεὸν τῆς δόξης, τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ αἰῶνος ("the God of glory, the King of eternity").</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> E.g., "I live by faith in [<i>or, the faithfulness of</i>] the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20); "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..." (Gal. 4:4). Matthew W. Bates writes concerning the theological implications of Romans 1:3-4, "the resurrection event was the occasion at which the Son of God, who was in fact already deemed the preexistent Son of God before the resurrection event, was appointed to a new office that was able to be described by the phrase Son-of-God-in-Power" ("A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement: Romans 1:3-4 as Unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory," <i>The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 </i>[2015]: 125-26.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-27104142564707466902022-07-24T22:12:00.003+02:002023-09-24T11:56:04.736+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (7): "Who can describe his generation?" (Isaiah 53:8)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><i>Addendum (24 September 2023):</i></div><div>When I wrote this article last year, I indicated that the New Testament does not contain any interpretation of Isaiah 53:8b. However, I've since become aware of the possibility that John 7:27 alludes to this passage. There, "the people of Jerusalem" raise an objection to the notion that Jesus is the Messiah: "Yet we know where this man is from; but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from" (NRSV). Jesus' declares in vv. 28-29 that where he is from is the Father ("you know where I am from...I am from [the one who sent me]"), thus implying a transcendent origin. </div><div><br /></div><div>Later in the chapter, "there was a division in the crowd because of him", since some felt that Jesus' coming from Galilee disqualified him from being the Messiah, since Scripture said the Messiah comes from Bethlehem (7:42). So there are two objections here about where Jesus comes from vs. where the Messiah comes from: Jesus' place of origin is known, while the Messiah's is unknown; Jesus' hometown is in Galilee, while the Messiah's is Bethlehem.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is obvious that those who believed the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem took the idea from Micah 5:2 (cp. Matthew 2:5-6), but what was the proof text for those who claimed that "when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from"? Although the latter part of Micah 5:2 ("whose origin is from of old, from ancient days") is a possibility, in context this seems to refer to the <i>when </i>of the referent's origins, not the <i>where </i>(which the text says is Bethlehem). The best candidate for the text behind the claim in John 7:27 seems to be the one discussed in this article, namely Isaiah 53:8b LXX ("Who can describe his generation?") This connection is noted by a number of post-Nicene Church Fathers, including St. Augustine (<i>Tract in Joannem </i>31.2) and St. Cyril of Alexandria (<i>On the Gospel according to John </i>5.653-54). In light of Jesus' reply in John 7:28-29, it is possible that the Fourth Evangelist already hints at a transcendent Christological interpretation of Isaiah 53:8b.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. The Song of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. "Who can describe his generation?" (Isaiah 53:8b)</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. Isaiah 53:8b in the New Testament</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 53:8b</a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_1" name="otit4_1">St. Justin Martyr</a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_2" name="otit4_2">St. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_3" name="otit4_3"><i>Acts of Peter</i></a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_4" name="otit4_4">Tertullian of Carthage</a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_5" name="otit4_5">Eusebius of Caesarea</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec5" name="otit5">5. Conclusion</a></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. The Song of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this seventh installment of our series on <i>Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian</i>, we delve into what was perhaps the most famous celebrated Isaianic passage of all among early Christians: the Song of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12).<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> The words of this oracle—much like those of <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/05/reading-isaiah-like-early-christian-4.html" target="_blank">Isaiah 9:5-6</a> ("Unto us a child is born...")—are assumed by most Christians to be a messianic prophecy. Well, they do not just assume this; they read it in the New Testament. Most famously, in Acts 8:26-35, an Ethiopian eunuch is at a loss to identify the Suffering Servant until Philip explains to him about Jesus. However, at a grammatical-historical level it is by no means obvious that deutero-Isaiah, the author who wrote these words around the time of Cyrus, had a future Messiah in mind. As Rosenberg writes,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>Jewish exegesis sees the Servant most frequently as the Jewish people, or its pious remnant, while conservative Christian exegesis insists that he is the Messiah. Modern scholars have attempted to identify the Servant with Jehoiachin or Zerubbabel, with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Deuter-Isaiah himself, or with the 'prophet' class as a whole. None of these suggestions is completely satisfactory.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Thus, we must reiterate a point made in the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/04/the-christological-significance-of.html" target="_blank">first article</a> in this series: if we identify as Christians and affirm the authority of the New Testament, we cannot confine our interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) to the literal, grammatical-historical meaning, <i>because the New Testament writers did not do so.</i> If we seek to read Isaiah like an early Christian, we must also examine the Jewish Scriptures mystically through the lens of the Christ-event. This will enable us to find buried treasure: veiled references to Christ and his redemptive work. To take the Song of the Suffering Servant as an example, the Gospel of John has understood the Servant's "lifting up" (52:13) as referring to the manner of Jesus' death (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34). Paul has understood the rhetorical questions in 53:1 as foretelling that many would reject the gospel (Romans 10:16). Matthew has understood "carried (away) our diseases" (53:4) as foretelling Jesus' healing ministry (Matt. 8:17). Peter has understood "he committed no sin" (53:9) as foretelling Jesus' sinlessness (1 Pet. 2:22-23) and "he was wounded for our transgressions" (53:5) as foretelling the atoning power of his death (1 Pet. 2:24). And so on.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. "Who can describe his generation?" (Isaiah 53:8b)</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Our interest in this article lies in a single clause of Isaiah 53:8. In the MT, it reads, <i>weʾęṯ-dôrô mîy yeśôḥēḥ</i>. Depending how one interprets the noun <i>dôr </i>(period; age; generation [of time or of people]; dwelling-place) and the verb <i>śîâḥ</i> (complain; muse; talk about; meditate; consider) here,<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> numerous renderings of the Hebrew are possible: "Who could have imagined his future?" (NRSV); "Who could describe his abode?" (JPS); "Yet who of his generation protested?" (NIV); "And as for his generation, who considered...?" (NASB); "And who could even think about his descendants?" (ISV); "and who shall declare his generation?" (KJV).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation disambiguates the Hebrew, rendering <i>dôr </i>with <i>genea </i>(generation [of time; of people]; race; family history) and <i>śîâḥ </i>with <i>diēgeomai </i>(tell; relate; describe);<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup>. thus, <i>tēn genean autou tis diēgēsetai;</i><sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> "Who will describe his generation?" (NETS)<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> This rhetorical question is perhaps most naturally read as a futuristic lament, akin to, "Who will [be left to] relate his family history?" However, this is not the interpretation of Isaiah 53:8 LXX that gained currency in the early church. A future indicative verb in ancient Greek can bear a deliberative rhetorical function more commonly associated with the subjunctive,<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> and thus <i>tēn genean autou tis diēgēsetai </i>could be read as, "Who <i>can </i>describe his generation?"</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Compare the following instances where the italicised future indicative verb has a deliberative sense, closer to "can" than "will":</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"> The heart is deep above all else, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> and so is man, </div><div style="width: 100%;"> and who <i>[shall? can?]</i> understand him? (Jeremiah 17:9 NETS)</div><div><br /></div><div><div> Sand of seas and drops of rain </div><div> and days of eternity—who <i>[shall? can?]</i> enumerate? (Sirach 1:2 NETS)</div></div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"> For who <i>[shall? can?]</i> say, “What have you done?” </div><div style="width: 100%;"> Or who <i>[shall? can?]</i> withstand your judgment? (Wisdom 12:12 NETS)</div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">BDAG lexicon notes that <i>genea </i>is "a term relating to the product of the act of generating and with special reference to kinship, frequently used of familial connections and ancestry".<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> Indeed, the word has a close etymological relationship to <i>genna</i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ō </i>(beget; give birth to). This rhetorical question was therefore ripe for interpretation in line with </span>early Christian beliefs about Jesus' supernatural origin, akin to "Who can describe his lineage/origin?"</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. Isaiah 53:8b in the New Testament</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This rhetorical question is quoted once in the New Testament, in Acts 8:32-33, where the narrator quotes Isaiah 53:7-8 LXX to explain which passage of Isaiah the Ethiopian eunuch was reading (presumably in Greek). However, while it is obvious from Philip's response that he (and the author of Acts) understand the prophet to be speaking about Jesus, no specific interpretation of the rhetorical question is provided. While numerous NT writers (some cited above) understand the Song of the Suffering Servant messianically, unfortunately no divinely inspired interpretation of the rhetorical question in Isaiah 53:8b is preserved. All is not lost, however, since a number of early patristic writers have left their interpretations on record.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 53:8b</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#otit4_1" name="osec4_1">St. Justin Martyr</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The earliest clear reference—after Acts 8:33—to our rhetorical question in extant early Christian literature is found in Justin Martyr's first Apology, written in the mid-second century.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> The apologist declares,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>And in order that the prophetic Spirit might make known to us that the one who suffers these things has an ancestry that cannot be described and reigns over his enemies, it spoke thus: ‘Who shall describe his descent? Because his life is removed from the earth, he has come to death from their crimes. (<i>1 Apology</i> 51.1)<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In his later work, the <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i>, Justin refers to our text no less than five times. It refers to the "mystery of the birth of Christ," which is "inexpressible" (<i>Dialogue </i>43.3; cf. 89.3); showing that he "did not have mere human origin" (63.2); "that he is not of human generation" (68.4); "that his origin is indescribable, and no mere man has such an origin" (76.2).<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> Thus, for Justin, Isaiah 53:8b refers to the virgin birth, but also to Christ having an indescribable "ancestry"<i> </i>(Greek: <i>genos</i>) and being divine ("no mere man").</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> <b><a href="#otit4_2" name="osec4_2">St. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In his <i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i>, Irenaeus writes:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Then he says: Who shall declare His generation? Lest we despise Him as a man insignificant and of little account, because of His foes and because of the pains of His sufferings, this was said to put us right; for He who underwent all these things has a generation that cannot be declared, for ‘generation’ means His lineage, and that is, His Father is beyond declaration and expression. Recognise, therefore, even this as the lineage of Him who underwent all these sufferings, and despite Him not for the sufferings which He deliberately underwent for thy sake; but fear Him for His lineage. (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 70)<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> </div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Irenaeus has, like Justin, understood <i>genea </i>in the sense "ancestry" or "lineage," which is indescribable because Christ was begotten by God himself.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><i><b> <a href="#otit4_3" name="osec4_3">Acts of Peter</a></b></i></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><br /></div><div>The <i>Acts of Peter </i>is an apocryphal acts that focuses primarily on a wonder-working contest between Peter and the heretic Simon Magus. The composition of the text is usually dated to the late second century, although it survives only in a Latin version of the fourth century, whose faithfulness to the lost Greek original is a subject of some debate.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>In an exchange in the <i>Acts </i>concerning the deity of Christ, Simon Magus asks, "Men of Rome, is a God born? Is he crucified? Whoever has a master is no God." Peter responds, "Cursed be your words against Christ. You spoke in these terms whereas the prophet says of him, 'Who shall declare his generation?'" (Acts of Peter 23-24)<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> Evidently, this work understands Isaiah 53:8 as attesting to the ineffability of Christ's origin, and thus as refuting Simon Magus' challenge, "Is a God born?"</div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#otit4_4" name="osec4_4">Tertullian of Carthage</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Tertullian, writing around the beginning of the third century, interprets our text in a slightly more mundane way, as referring to people's inability to recognise Christ in his human condition, rather than to the incomprehensibility per se of his origin:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>Then those who pierced him will know who he is, and will smite their breasts, tribe to tribe—because in fact they formerly failed to recognize him in the humility of human condition: ‘And he is a man,’ says Jeremiah, ‘and who shall know him?’ Because also, Isaiah says, ‘His nativity, who shall tell of it?’ (Tertullian, <i>Against Marcion</i> 3.7.6)<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#otit4_5" name="osec4_5">Eusebius of Caesarea</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Eusebius, in his work <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, written a decade or less before the Council of Nicaea of 325 (which he attended), anticipates its language about Christ in his interpretation of Isaiah 53:8, which he understands to be about "the ineffable generation" of the Son (<i>Proof of the Gospel </i>4.15.53).<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> Indeed, this is a very important biblical passage for Eusebius:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>I am accustomed to quote in every question that is debated about His Godhead, that reverent saying: 'Who shall declare his generation?' (<i>Proof of the Gospel </i>4.15.53)<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The following excerpt captures his understanding of the verse, which is indebted to Origen's ideas on the eternal generation of the Son:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>the scope of the theology we are considering far transcends all illustrations, and is not connected with anything physical, but imagines with the acutest thought a Son Begotten, not at one time non-existent and existent at another afterwards, but existent before eternal time, and pre-existent, and ever with the Father as His Son, and yet not Unbegotten, but begotten from the Father Unbegotten, being the Only begotten, the Word, and God of God, Who teaches that He was not cast forth from the being of the Father by separation, or scission, or division, but unspeakably and unthinkably to us brought into being from all time, nay rather before all times, by the Father's transcendent and inconceivable Will and Power. 'For who shall describe his generation?' he says, and 'As no one knoweth the Father save the Son, so no one knoweth the Son save the Father that begat Him. (<i>Proof of the Gospel</i> 4.3.13)<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit5" name="osec5">5. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Although the Song of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) was being interpreted Christologically already in the earliest decades of the Christian movement, no canonical interpretation of Isaiah 53:8 LXX ("Who will/can describe his generation?") is preserved in the New Testament. Patristic testimony from the ante-Nicene period suggests that there was an established tradition of reading this question as pointing to the indescribable mystery of Christ's origin. </div>
<br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> The full passage reads thus in the NRSV: "13 See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up and shall be very high. 14 Just as there were many who were astonished at him—so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals—15 so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. 53:1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity, and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account. 4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases, yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. 9 They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with affliction. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. 11 Out of his anguish he shall see; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out himself to death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Roy A. Rosenberg, "Jesus, Isaac, and the 'Suffering Servant,' <i>Journal of Biblical Literature 84</i> (1965): 381.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> BDB 189-90, 967.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> BDAG 191-92, 245.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Joseph Ziegler (ed.), <i>Septuaginta </i>(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 14:320.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Trans. Moisés Silva, "Esaias," in <i>New English Translation of the Septuagint</i>, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 866.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Daniel B. Wallace, <i>Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament</i> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 465.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> BDAG 191.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> There may be an earlier, albeit oblique, allusion to Isaiah 53:8b in the <i>Odes of Solomon</i>, a proto-Gnostic 'hymnbook' usually dated to the early second century. Of the Word of truth, the twelfth Ode says, "And he never falls, but stands firm. And not known (is) his descent nor his way." (<i>Odes </i>12.6, trans. Franzmann 101). However, while this text may witness to a mystical interpretation of Isaiah 53:8b, the Word in the <i>Odes </i>is an abstract hypostasis not readily identifiable with the person of Christ.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Trans. Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, <i>Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 209.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> St. Justin Martyr, <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i>, ed. Michael Slusser, trans. Thomas B. Falls, rev. Thomas P. Halton (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 118.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> Trans. Joseph P. Smith, S.J., <i>St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostlic Preaching</i> (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1952), 93. Irenaeus also quotes our text in his better-known work (cf. <i>Against Heresies </i>2.28.5). Here, he uses it against Gnostics who claim to delineate in crudely exact terms the manner of the Word's generation by the Father.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Callie Callon, "Acts of Peter," in <i>Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies</i> (2021). doi: 10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0285</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> Trans. J. K. Elliott, <i>The Apocryphal New Testament</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 527-28.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Trans. Ernest Evans, <i>Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem </i>(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 189.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Trans. W. J. Ferrar, <i>The Proof of the Gospel, Being the </i>Demonstratio Evangelica <i>of Eusebius of Caesarea</i> (2 vols.; London: SPCK, 1920), 1:201.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> Trans. Ferrar, <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, 1:201.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Trans. Ferrar, <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, 1:168. See also <i>Proof of the Gospel </i>5.1.14-25.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-66483915450880809982022-06-20T00:12:00.015+02:002022-06-20T01:44:05.262+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (6): "I stretched out my hands all day long towards a disobedient people" (Isaiah 65:2)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><a href="#osec1" name="oref1"><b>Introduction</b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><a href="#osec2" name="oref2"><b>Paul's Use of Isaiah 65:2 in Romans 10:21</b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec2_1" name="oref2_1">Paul's Understanding of the <i>Kyrios</i> of Isaiah 65:1-7</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec2_2" name="oref2_2">Paul's Understanding of "All day long I stretched out my hands"</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><a href="#osec3" name="oref3"><b>Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 65:2</b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <i><a href="#osec3_1" name="oref3_1">Epistle of Barnabas</a></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><i> </i><a href="#osec3_2" name="oref3_2">St. Justin Martyr</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec3_3" name="oref3_3">St. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec3_4" name="oref3_4">Tertullian of Carthage</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <i><a href="#osec3_5" name="oref3_5">Didascalia Apostolorum</a> </i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec3_6" name="oref3_6">St. Hippolytus of Rome</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec3_7" name="oref3_7">Novatian of Rome</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec3_8" name="oref3_8">St. Cyprian of Carthage</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><a href="#osec4" name="oref4"><b>Conclusion</b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref1" name="osec1">Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The opening verses of Isaiah 65 introduce a speech by Yahweh about the rebelliousness of his people Israel:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="chapter-2"></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="chapter-2">1 I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-65-1">to be found by those who did not seek me.</span></span><br /><span class="text Isa-65-1">I said, “Here I am, here I am,”</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-65-1">to a nation that did not call on my name.</span></span><br /><span class="text Isa-65-2" id="en-NRSVCE-22786">2 I held out my hands all day long</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-65-2">to a rebellious people,</span></span><br /><span class="text Isa-65-2">who walk in a way that is not good,</span><br /><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Isa-65-2">following their own devices... </span></span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2">6 See, it is written before me:</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2"> I will not keep silent, but I will repay;</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2">I will indeed repay into their laps </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2">7 their iniquities and their ancestors’ iniquities together, </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2"> says the Lord [<i>Heb. </i>YHWH]; </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2">because they offered incense on the mountains </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2"> and reviled me on the hills, </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2">I will measure into their laps </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><span class="indent-1"><span class="text Isa-65-2"> full payment for their actions. (Isaiah 65:1-2, 6-7 NRSV)</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Our main interest in this article lies with early Christian interpretation of the first line of v. 2. The Hebrew verb <i>pāraś</i> normally refers to spreading out one's hands in prayer, so the picture of YHWH with his hands spread out in supplication to Israel represents a paradoxical reversal, reflecting the extent of God's efforts to win over his people.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The Septuagint Greek translation of Isaiah 65:2a follows the Hebrew closely, except that it adds a second adjective describing Israel: "I stretched out my hands all day long towards a disobedient and contrary people" (<i>exepetasa tas cheiras mou hol</i><i>ēn t</i><i>ēn h</i><i>ēmeran pros laon apeithounta kai antilegonta</i>).<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> The Hebrew verb <i>pāraś</i> has been suitably rendered with the Greek verb <i>ekpetannumi</i>,<i> </i>meaning to spread out, hold out, or stretch out, and with <i>tas cheiras </i>(the hands) likewise suggesting "an imploring gesture";<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> it is used in Exodus 9:29, 33 LXX of Moses' intercessory prayer.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In its original context in the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 65 verses 1-2 are synonymous, both concerning Israel and referring to "the efforts to which God has made to win the faithless back."<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> The sense of v. 1 is, "Although I was present and would have responded had they beckoned Me, they did not seek Me."<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> Most interpreters thus take the Niphal forms here as permissive, reflecting God's <i>readiness </i>to be found by his disinterested people. The LXX, however, translates them with an effective sense: "I <i>became visible</i> to those who were not seeking me; I <i>was found</i> by those who were not inquiring about me,"<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><b><a href="#oref2" name="osec2">Paul's Use of Isaiah 65:2 in Romans 10:21</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 and 65:2 in Romans 10:20-21 as part of his extended discourse in Romans 9-11 on <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/08/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-4-israel.html" target="_blank">Israel's unbelief in the Gospel message</a>: </div><blockquote>20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by [or, <i>among</i>] those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me [<i>Isaiah 65:1]</i>.” 21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people <i>[Isaiah 65:2]</i>.” (NRSV)</blockquote><div>Paul's wording follows the Septuagint, despite some minor changes,<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> the most significant of which for our purposes is that the words <i>hol</i><i>ēn t</i><i>ēn h</i><i>ēmeran </i>("all day long") have been brought to the beginning of the clause for emphasis. Like the Septuagint, Paul has understood Isaiah 65:1 in an effective sense. This allows him to set Isaiah 65:1 and 65:2 in contrast,<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> with 65:1 referring to the gracious finding of the message of salvation by those who had never sought it (particularly Gentiles), and 65:2 referring to the rejection of that message by most of Israel.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>Paul offers minimal comment on Isaiah 65:1-2, and since he simply attributes the words to "Isaiah," it is not clear whom he understands the speaker to be in this oracle. Commentators on Romans are in seemingly unanimous agreement that Paul understands the speaker to be God,<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> which is understandable given that YHWH is the speaker of this oracle in Isaiah MT. However, I would like to explore the possibility—which admittedly cannot be proven conclusively—that Paul has understood Christ to be the <i>Kyrios </i>(Isaiah 65:7 LXX) who speaks these words.</div><div><br /></div><div> <b><a href="#oref2_1" name="osec2_1">Paul's Understanding of the <i>Kyrios</i> of Isaiah 65:1-7</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, although Paul says almost nothing about the text beyond quoting it, it is already certain from what he does say that he is offering an <i>early Christian reinterpretation</i> of this prophetic text—either his own or one that was in circulation.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> This reinterpretation has divided vv. 1-2 into two parts fulfilled by two present-day events related to the message about Christ: "the Jews' general refusal of the gospel" (65:2) and "the Gentiles' eager acceptance of it" (65:1).<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> Thus, it cannot be ruled out this reinterpretation had particularised other aspects of the oracle's meaning to the early Christian setting (including <i>who the speaker is</i>).</div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, it is generally recognised by Pauline scholars that Paul makes considerable use of the rabbinic exegetical principle known as <i>gezerah shavah</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> This principle entails that two biblical texts that use the same word or phrase can be interpreted jointly, with the meaning of the term in one text informed by the other.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> A widely recognised Pauline use of <i>gezerah shavah </i>occurs in Romans 4:1-8, where Paul uses the occurrence of the verb <i>logizomai </i>("count"; "impute") in Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 31(32):1-2 LXX to infer that both passages are about forensic justification.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> So, what does <i>gezerah shavah </i>have to do with Romans 10:20-21? If we look at Paul's Scripture quotations in Romans 10:5-21 (and even the rest of the book) as a catena—a connected series—we will notice that important terminology recurs in multiple passages. Let us note a couple of interesting parallels.</div><div><br /></div><div>(i) In Romans 10:6-8, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 30:12 LXX and interprets the generic reference to "the word" (<i>to rhēma</i>) there to mean "the word of faith <i>that we proclaim</i>," i.e. the gospel. Similarly, Septuagintal references to "bringing good news" (<i>euangeliz</i><i>ō</i>, Isa. 52:7) and "our report" (<i>ho ako</i><i>ē</i><i> h</i><i>ēmōn</i>, Isa. 53:1) are understood to refer to "the word of Christ" (<i>rhēma Christou</i>) in Romans 10:15-17, which—per Isaiah 53:1—some have rejected. Given that we know Paul followed a Christianised reinterpretation of Isaiah 65, would he not have likewise understood words such as "because I called you and you did not answer, I spoke and you misheard" (Isaiah 65:12 LXX) to refer to Israel's rejection of the Christian message?<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>(ii) Another biblical phrase that is key to Paul's argument in Romans 10 is drawn from Joel 2:32(3:5): "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Although Paul does not quote the entire verse, it uses the verb <i>euangeliz</i><i>ō </i>("bring good news"), which links it via <i>gezerah shavah </i>to Isaiah 52:7. What is fascinating is that, while in the Hebrew Bible, Joel 2:32 refers to calling on the name of YHWH, Paul understands this "Lord" (<i>kyrios </i>in the LXX) to be Christ, as his interpretation in vv. 9-12, 14-17 makes clear.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup> But the speaker of Isaiah 65:1 LXX says, "I was found by those who were not inquiring about me. I said, 'Here I am,' to the nation that did not <i>call my name</i>." We know that Paul understood these words to refer to the Gentiles' belief in Christ, and by connecting Joel 2:32 with Isaiah 65:1 (<i>gezerah shavah</i>), Paul could have concluded that both prophetic texts are referring to calling on the name of the same "Lord."<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> Since we know that Paul understood this "Lord" to be Christ in Joel 2:32, it is possible, indeed likely, that Paul also understood Christ to be the "Lord" in Isaiah 65:1-7.</div><div><br /></div><div><b> <a href="#oref2_2" name="osec2_2">Paul's Understanding of "All day long I stretched out my hands"</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Having established the possibility—indeed, likelihood—that Paul identified the <i>Kyrios </i>who speaks in Isaiah 65:1-7 to be Christ, we will be "bold" like Isaiah (Rom. 10:20) and ask further how Paul might have understood the words, "All day long I stretched out my hands," <i>if understood as spoken by Christ</i>. There is admittedly an element of speculation here, but I think some intriguing observations can be made. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, we already established that for the Lord (whether God or Christ) to "spread out his hands" to his people (Isa. 65:2) was an act of self-humiliation, since this was a reversal of the proper order whereby his people ought to "spread out their hands" to him in supplication. Now, Seifrid comments:</div><blockquote>In contrast with the LXX, Paul fronts the adverbial expression 'all the day,' stressing God's abiding love for his people. The anthropomorphic language of Isaiah is dramatic and poignant, preparing Paul's readers for his following discussion of Israel's salvation: 'All the day I have stretched out my hands...'<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup></blockquote><div>But if Christ is the speaker, then Paul is stressing <i>Christ's </i>love for his people, and the language need not be understood as anthropomorphic, since Christ had literal hands. Of course, the "day" when Christ most definitively spread out his hands was the day of his Passion, when in the <i>ultimate</i> act of divine self-humiliation, the One "existing in the form of God" "humbled himself" even to "death on a cross" (Phil. 2:6-8).</div><div><br /></div><div>Still more can be said. Seifrid adds that </div><blockquote>The expression ["all day long I have stretched out my hands"] indirectly also recalls the suffering to which believers in Christ are exposed according to Paul's citation of Ps. [43:22(44:23)] in 8:36 ('On account of you, we are put to death all the day').</blockquote><div>Indeed, the quotation of Isaiah 65:2 in Romans 10:21 and the quotation of Psalm 43:22(44:23) in Romans 8:36 use the same Greek phrase, <i>hol</i><i>ēn t</i><i>ēn h</i><i>ēmeran </i>("all day long"), and Paul brings it to the front of his quotation of Isaiah 65:2 for emphasis. By <i>gezerah shavah</i>, Paul might well have connected these two passages. The full quotation in Romans 8:36 is, "For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered" (NRSV), which is interpreted as referring to, <i>inter alia</i>, the "persecution" and "sword" to which believers in Christ are exposed. But the comparison to "sheep to be slaughtered" obviously likens the suffering of believers to the suffering of Christ, who likewise "like a sheep... was led to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7 NETS).<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> And this comparison is not lost on Paul, who earlier in the chapter stated, "we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him" (Rom. 8:17 NRSV).</div><div><br /></div><div>So we have the following hypothetical analogy between believers' suffering and Christ's:</div><blockquote><div>Believers go as sheep to the slaughter [Romans 8:36/Ps. 43:22] //</div><div> just as Christ went as a sheep to the slaughter [Isaiah 53:7] </div></blockquote><div><blockquote><div>Believers are killed all day long [Romans 8:36/Ps. 43:22] //</div><div> just as Christ stretched out his hands all day long (on the cross) [Romans 10:21/Isaiah 65:2]</div></blockquote></div><div>Lastly, although less relevant to interpreting Paul, it is worth noting that the Gospel of John contains some significant parallels. In John, Jesus' death is described as his being "lifted up" (lemma: <i>hupso</i><i>ō</i>, John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34) and "glorified" (lemma: <i>doxaz</i><i>ō</i>, John 12:23; 13:31). These two verbs correspond to Isaiah 52:13 LXX, which says of the Servant figure that "he shall be exalted (lemma: <i>hupso</i><i>ō</i>)<i> </i>and glorified (lemma: <i>doxaz</i><i>ō</i>) exceedingly". It is well established in biblical scholarship both that John is alluding to Isaiah 52:13 and that he is using the verb <i>hupso</i><i>ō</i> with a double meaning, by which Jesus' physical "lifting up" on the cross was also his "lifting up" in the sense of exaltation.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> This use of Isaiah 52:13 LXX by John closely parallels how we are suggesting Paul may have understood Isaiah 65:2 LXX. John has taken a verb from Isaiah 52:13 that originally had a <i>metaphorical</i> meaning (the Servant was "lifted up" in exaltation) and added a second meaning by extending it <i>physically </i>to Christ's crucifixion (being "lifted up" on a cross). In like manner, my suggestion is that Paul may have taken the phrase "All day long I stretched out my hands" in Isaiah 65:2, which originally had a metaphorical meaning ("I patiently implored") and added a second meaning by extending it <i>physically </i>to Christ's crucifixion (stretching out one's hands on a cross all day long). Furthermore, just as stretching out one's hands is a <i>gesture</i> (of imploring), so John also understands Christ's crucifixion as a <i>gesture </i>(of "drawing," perhaps as fish into a net, John 12:32). Finally, just as Paul drew a comparison between Christ's suffering and that of his followers, so John draws an implicit comparison between Christ's being "glorified" in his death (and God in him), and Peter's "death by which he would glorify God"—which, coincidentally, is said to involve Peter stretching out his hands (John 21:18).<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>We have made the case at some length that Paul <i>likely </i>understood Christ as the Lord who speaks the words of Isaiah 65:2 and <i>possibly </i>understood the words "All day long I stretched out my hands towards a disobedient and contrary people" with reference to Christ's crucifixion. Again, neither of these claims can be proven conclusively; Paul simply does not give us enough information about his understanding of Isaiah 65:2 to verify them or rule them out. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence to make them an intriguing possibility.</div><div><br /></div><div>What <i>is</i> certain is that the next-earliest Christian interpretation of Isaiah 65:2 that is on record does interpret it as a prophecy about the cross, and that this interpretation was widely held in the early patristic period. To this witness we now turn.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#oref3" name="osec3">Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 65:2</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b> <i><a href="#oref3_1" name="osec3_1">Epistle of Barnabas</a></i></b></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The <i>Epistle of Barnabas</i> is a homiletic text dating to the early second century A.D., probably c. 130, written either in Alexandria or Syro-Palestine.<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> It was not written by Paul's associate Barnabas, and indeed does not claim to have been—it is anonymous. In surveying the Jewish Scriptures for testimony about baptism and the cross, the writer says,</div><blockquote>But we should look closely to see if the Lord was concerned to reveal anything in advance about the water and the cross … In a similar way he makes another declaration about the cross in another prophet [<i>cites 4 Ezra 4.33, 5.5, Exodus 17:8-13</i>] … And again in another prophet he says, ‘All day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient people that opposes my upright path.’ ... [<i>continues by citing Numbers 21:4-9</i>] (<i>Barn.</i> 11.1, 12.1, 12.4)<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup></blockquote><div>It is clear from the way the quotation of Isaiah 65:2 is introduced that the writer has understood it to be a "declaration about the cross." Interestingly, <i>Barnabas </i>follows the same word order in the quotation as Paul in Romans 10:21, with <i>hol</i><i>ēn t</i><i>ēn h</i><i>ēmeran</i> fronted for emphasis. This may indicate that <i>Barnabas </i>is following Romans,<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> or that <i>Barnabas </i>and Romans are following a shared early Christian tradition concerning this text.</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><i> </i><a href="#oref3_2" name="osec3_2">St. Justin Martyr</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>In his <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i>, writing about three decades after <i>Barnabas </i>(but with some material perhaps contemporaneous with it),<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> Justin follows the same interpretation:</div><blockquote>Isaiah likewise foretold the manner of his [the Lord’s] death in these words: 'I have stretched out my hands to an unbelieving and contradicting people, who walk in a way that is not good.' (<i>Dialogue</i> 97.2)<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup></blockquote><div><b> <a href="#oref3_3" name="osec3_3">St. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Another two decades or so after Justin, the Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) writes, </div><blockquote>And again, concerning His Cross, Isaias says as follows: 'I have stretched forth my hands all the day to a stubborn and contrary people'; for this is a figure of the Cross. (<i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i> 79)<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup></blockquote><div><b> <a href="#oref3_4" name="osec3_4">Tertullian of Carthage</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The prolific Carthaginian polemicist wrote his work <i>Against the Jews </i>around the beginning of the third century, another two decades or so after Irenaeus. Once again, he interprets it as one of several biblical prophecies about Christ's Passion: </div><blockquote>From this it is also clear that the city was due to be destroyed at the same time as when its leader was having to suffer in it, in accordance with the writings of the prophets who say, ‘I have stretched out my hands for the whole day to a people who are stubborn and speaking against me and who walk not in a way that is good but after their own sins.’ Likewise in the psalms, ‘They have destroyed my hands and my feet. They have counted all my bones. Moreover, they themselves have seen and considered me’, and ‘in my thirst they have given me vinegar to drink.’ (<i>Against the Jews</i> 13.10)<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup></blockquote><div><b> <i><a href="#oref3_5" name="osec3_5">Didascalia Apostolorum</a> </i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The <i>Didascalia Apostolorum </i>is a pseudepigraphic church order document, originally written in Greek but surviving only in Syriac. It is usually dated around the beginning of the third century with a Syrian provenance.<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup> The text says the following about our passage:</div><blockquote>For when our Lord came to the People, they did not believe Him when He taught them, but put away His teaching from their ears. Therefore, because this People was not obedient, He received you, the brethren who are of the Gentiles… But concerning the People, who believed not in Him, He said thus: 'I spread forth my hands all the day long to a people that obey not and resist, and walk in a way that is not good, and go after their sins: a people that is provoking before me.' (<i>Didascalia Apostolorum</i> 21.15)<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup></blockquote><div>It is certain that the author understood Isaiah 65:2 to have been spoken by "our Lord," Christ, concerning his rejection by the Jews. It is not clear whether "I spread forth my hands all the day long" is taken to refer to the cross or to his imploration of the Jews more generally.</div><div><br /></div><div><b> <a href="#oref3_6" name="osec3_6">St. Hippolytus of Rome</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Another early third-century work is Hippolytus of Rome's <i>Blessings of Moses</i>, which survives in Armenian and Georgian versions. No English translation has been published, to my knowledge; what follows is my translation of a French translation:</div><blockquote>It is possible to hear this also of the future coming of the Lord. For he who on Mount Sinai appeared to Moses, he, with the Angels, will come and save the saints from their persecuting and oppressing enemies, thus sparing those who have hoped in him. For he says: 'All the sanctified ones (are) under your hands' [<i>Deut. 33:3</i>]. For cover and shelter for all, who could it be but the Lord who has stretched out his hands and sanctified all who run to him, as the hen (does) to cover her chicks? [<i>Matt. 23.37</i>] And Ezra, in a prophetic voice, said the same thing: 'Blessed is the Lord who has stretched out his hands and revived Jerusalem!' [<i>4 Ezra 7.27</i>] And, through Isaiah, He rails against the rebels and says, 'All day long have I stretched out my hands to the rebellious people.' And here Moses says, 'All the sanctified ones (are) under your hands, even these are under you.' (<i>Blessings of Moses</i> 320)<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup></blockquote><p>It seems clear from the reference to the Lord's future coming with the angels and the likely allusion to Matthew 23:37 that "the Lord" here refers to Christ. It is not certain whether Hippolytus has understood Christ to have "stretched out his hands" on the cross or in a more general imploring sense.</p><div><b> <a href="#oref3_7" name="osec3_7">Novatian of Rome</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Writing in the mid-third century, Novatian clearly interprets our text with reference to the cross.</div><blockquote>(6) For Divine Scripture often mentions things that have not yet been done as already done, because they are eventually going to be done; and it foretells things which are certainly about to happen, not as though they are going to happen in the future, but rather as though they had already happened. (7) In fact, though Christ had not yet been born in the time of Isaiah the prophet, Isaiah stated: ‘For a child is born to us.’ And although Mary had not yet been approached, he said: ‘And I went to the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son.’ (8) Though Christ had not yet made known the divine secrets of the Father, Isaiah stated: ‘And His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel.’ (9) He had not yet suffered, and the prophet declared: ‘He was led as a sheep to the throat-cutter.’ (10) As yet there had been no Cross, and he stated: ‘All the day long I have stretched out My hands to an unbelieving people.’ (<i>On the Trinity</i> 28.6-10)<sup id="ref-footnote-33"><a href="#footnote-33" rel="footnote">33</a></sup></blockquote><div>Novatian writes in Latin, but like the second-century <i>Epistle of Barnabas </i>and like Hippolytus (if the Armenian word order is true to the Greek), his word order in the quotation matches that of Paul in Romans 10:21.</div><div><br /></div><div><b> <a href="#oref3_8" name="osec3_8">St. Cyprian of Carthage</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Novatian's contemporary in North Africa quotes Isaiah 65:2 in a list of proof texts adduced to prove "That the Jews would fasten Christ to the Cross" (<i>Ad Quirinum </i>2.20).<sup id="ref-footnote-34"><a href="#footnote-34" rel="footnote">34</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#oref4" name="osec4">Conclusion</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The view that "I stretched out my hands all day long towards a disobedient and contrary people" (Isaiah 65:2) was a prophecy spoken by Christ was widely held in the second and third centuries, from Alexandria/Syro-Palestine in the East to Carthage, Rome, and Gaul in the West. Most of these writers are, furthermore, clear that they understand the prophecy to refer to Christ's crucifixion, the stretching out of his hands on the cross.</div><div><br /></div><div>We cannot be certain about the origin of this exegetical tradition. It could stem from reflection directly on Isaiah 65:2 LXX, or indirectly via Romans 10:21. However, given what we argued in the first part of this article—that Paul himself likely understood it as a prophecy spoken by Christ and possibly even about the cross—the possibility cannot be discounted that the crucifixion interpretation of Isaiah 65:2 goes back to the Apostle to the Gentiles himself.</div></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Cp. Isa. 1:15; 1 Kings 8:22, 38; Ps. 143:6; Lam. 1:17. "However, in marked contrast with the other verses, which speak of human supplication vis-à-vis the Deity, here, paradoxically, the Deity is begging for the attention of inattentive humans" (Shalom M. Paul, <i>Isaiah 40-66: Translation & Commentary </i>[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012], 592); similarly, J. Alec Motyer, <i>The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary</i> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 524.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> The translation follows Moisés Silva's, except that I have translated πρὸς with "towards" rather than "to" ("Esaias," in New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 874). Both are within the semantic range of <i>pros </i>+ accusative. Greek text is taken from <i>Septuaginta</i>, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 14:355.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> BDAG 307; cf. J. Lust, E. Eynikel, & K. Hauspie, <i>A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint</i>, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 1:139.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Claus Westermann, <i>Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary </i>(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 400); "Admittedly, Isa. 65:1 speaks in the first instance of Israel's disobedience" (Mark A. Seifrid, "Romans," in <i>Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament</i>, ed. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 665).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Paul, <i>Isaiah 40-66</i>, 592.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Silva, "Esaias," 14:355. The Greek terms are <i>emphan</i><i>ēs egenom</i><i>ēn </i>and <i>eureth</i><i>ēn</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> In quoting Isaiah 65:1, the verbal expressions <i>emphan</i><i>ēs egenom</i><i>ēn </i>and <i>eureth</i><i>ēn </i>beginning vv. 1a and 1b have been inverted. The preposition <i>en </i>seems to have been inserted between <i>eureth</i><i>ēn </i>and <i>tois</i>, changing "by those" to "among those," although this is text-critically uncertain. "Among those" would imply that only some Gentiles had found God, not the Gentiles in general.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> "In their original context these words from Isaiah 65:1 (‘I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me …’) seem to refer to rebellious Israel; but, as in his application of the Hosea prophecy, Paul recognizes here a principle which in the situation of his day is applicable to Gentiles, and the LXX wording...lent support to this application" (F. F. Bruce, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985), 207–208).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> "The prepositional phrase πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ that introduces the final citation in this pericope should be taken as 'in reference to Israel' rather than as a direct address, 'to Israel.' The particle δέ appears again with the sense of 'but,' indicating that the address to the Gentiles in v. 20 shifts to Israel in v. 21" (Robert Jewett and Roy David Kotansky, <i>Romans: A Commentary </i>[Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006], 648–649); "πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ λέγει, 'but concerning Israel he says'... Paul specifies Israel as the target, thereby making still clearer the point that v 20 referred to Gentiles" (James D. G. Dunn, <i>Romans 9–16</i> [Dallas: Word, 1988], 626–627).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> E.g., Dunn, <i>Romans 9-16</i>, 626-27; Jewett and Kotansky, <i>Romans</i>, 626-67; Seifrid, "Isaiah," 667; Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., <i>Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary</i>, (New Haven; Yale University Press, 2008), 600; James R. Edwards, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 257–258; Richard N. Longenecker, <i>The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 858–860; Douglas J. Moo, <i>The Letter to the Romans</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 687–688.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> "The historical question of when Isa 65:1–2 was first divided into two parts—the first verse speaking about Gentiles who have responded positively to God; the second verse speaking about the people of Israel who have been 'disobedient and obstinate'—will probably never be answered. It may have been done by Paul himself here in Rom 10:20–21—or, perhaps more likely, by some earlier Christian apostle or teacher in the Jerusalem church or in the congregations of Syrian Antioch" (Longenecker, <i>The Epistle to the Romans</i>, 858–860).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> France, <i>Romans</i>, 208. Similarly, "Paul cites the text typologically in precisely this sense: God's dealings with Israel in the past have been recapitulated in the present" (Seifrid, "Romans," 666).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> "Traces of the apostle's Jewish identity can be seen in... the reception of manifold requirements and methods of Jewish biblical exegesis at the time (<i>Qal Wa-homer</i> in Rom 5.9f. and elsewhere; <i>Gezerah shavah</i> in Rom. 4.1-12 and elsewhere, Midrash-exegesis in Gal. 3.6-14 and Rom. 4; typology in 1 Cor. 10.1-13; allegory in Gal. 4.21-31)" (Oda Wischmeyer, <i>Paul: Life, Setting, Work, Letters</i>, trans. Helen S. Heron with revisions by Dieter T. Roth [London: T&T Clark, 2012], 77); "there can be no doubt that Paul does at times employ a Stichwort approach in adducing Old Testament citations (e.g. gezerah shavah)" (James M. Scott, "'For as Many as are of Works of the Law are under a Curse' (Galatians 3.10)," in <i>Paul and the Scriptures of Israel</i>, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders [London: Bloomsbury, 1993/2015], 191).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> David Instone Brewer explains that <i>gezerah shavah </i>encompasses two rules. The first is "the definition of an ill-defined word or phrase in one text by its use in another text where its meaning is clearer. It does not attempt to survey all the possible uses of the word or phrase throughout the Scripture but it assumes that the meaning of a word in one text is always the same as its meaning in another." The second is "the interpretation of one text in the light of another text to which it is related by a shared word or phrase. The two texts are often concerned with the same subject, but the existence of the same word or phrase in two texts can suggest a relationship between them even if they are concerned with completely unrelated subjects" (<i>Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE</i> [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992], 17-18).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> "in Rom. 4:1-8 Paul combines Gen. 15:6 with Ps. 32:1-2 on the basis of the verb <i>logizomai</i>, which both texts have in common. This is an application of the rule called 'analogy' (<i>gezerah shavah</i>) by the Rabbis." (Klaus Haacker, <i>The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Romans</i> [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 102).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> "The LXX rendering [of Isaiah 65:2] may pick up the concrete expression of Israel's rebellion as it is portrayed in context, which includes dismissal of the 'word of the LORD' (Isa. 65:3-7, 12; 66:3-5; also 59:1-15)" (Seifrid, "Isaiah," 667).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> "if you confess with your lips that <i>Jesus is Lord</i>... you will be saved...the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him" (vv. 10, 12). Paul pairs the quotation from Joel with one from Isaiah 28:16 about the precious stone of which "the one who believes in him will not be put to shame". This can only be Christ in Paul's understanding; yet Paul identifies the referent of Isaiah 28:16 and Joel 2:32 as the same: "But how are they to <i>call on one</i> in whom they have not believed? And how are they to <i>believe in one</i> of whom they have never heard?" (v. 14)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> "The nation refuses to 'call on the name of the (risen) Lord' (10:3-4, 13)—the very charge that the Lord brings in Isaiah (Isa. 65:1b; cf. 64:7)" (Seifrid, "Isaiah," 667).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> "Romans," 667.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> That is, according to the early Christian interpretation of the Servant Song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which we know that Paul followed, based on his quotation of Isaiah 53:1 in Romans 10:16 and his quotation of Isaiah 52:15 in Romans 15:21.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> See, e.g., Richard Bauckham, <i>God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 63-67; James M. Hamilton, Jr., <i>God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology</i> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 414f; Bruce R. Reichenbach, "Soteriology in the Gospel of John," <i>Themelios 46</i> (2021): 578-81.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> The verb is a different one, <i>ektein</i><i>ō</i>, meaning "extend" (e.g., to receive irons) rather than "spread out" as <i>ekpetannumi </i>in Isaiah 65:2. So the verbal parallel is not compelling, but it is interesting nonetheless that, for John, an action of extending the hands was suitable language to describe an apostle's death that glorifies God like Christ's did.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> So Bart D. Ehrman, <i>The Apostolic Fathers</i>, 2 vols.<i> </i>(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2:7-8.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> Trans. Ehrman, <i>The Apostolic Fathers</i>, 2:53, 57.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> An early 20th century work on the use of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers rates it as "B" (highly probable) on a scale from A to D that the author of <i>Barnabas </i>knew Romans (A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, <i>The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers </i>(Oxford: Clarendon, 1905).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> c. 160 is the usual date for the <i>Dialogue</i>, but Timothy J. Horner argues that the <i>Dialogue</i> was a redacted version of an earlier "Trypho Text," an account of a real dialogue with Trypho, which he dates to c. 135 A.D. (<i>Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered</i> [Leuven: Peeters, 2001]).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> St. Justin Martyr, <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i>, ed. Michael Slusser, trans. Thomas B. Falls, rev. Thomas P. Halton (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 148; see also <i>Dialogue</i> 114.2; <i>1 Apology </i>38.1.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> St. Irenaeus, <i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i>, trans. Joseph P. Smith (Westminster: Newman, 1952), 97.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> Trans. Geoffrey D. Dunn, <i>Tertullian</i> (London: Routledge, 2004), 68-69.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> Joel Marcus, "The 'Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs' and '<i>Didascalia Apostolorum</i>': A Common Jewish Christian Milieu?", <i>Journal of Theological Studies 61 </i>(2010): 600-602.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> Trans. R. Hugh Connolly, <i>Didascalia Apostolorum </i>(Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 185.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> French original: "Il est possible d'entendre aussi ceci de la venue future du Seigneur. Car, celui qui, sur le Mont Sinaï, est apparu à Moïse, celui-là, avec des Anges, viendra et sauvera les Saints de leurs ennemis persécuteurs et oppresseurs, épargnant ainsi (à) ceux qui auront espéré en Lui, (la défaite). Car il dit: «Tous les sanctifies (sont) sous tes mains». Car couverture et abri pour tous, qui peut l’être, sinon le Seigneur qui a étendu ses mains et sanctifié tous ceux qui courent à Lui, comme la poule (fait) pour couvrir ses poussins? Et Esdras, d’une voix prophétique, a dit la même chose: «Béni est le Seigneur qui a étendu ses mains et fait revivre Jérusalem!» Et, par Isaïe, Il vitupère les rebelles et dit: «J’ai étendu mes mains tout le jour vers le people rebelle». Et ici, Moïse dit: «Tous les sanctifies (sont) sous tes mains, et ceux-ci sont sous toi»." (Maurice Brière, Louis Mariès & B.-Ch. Mercier, "Bénédictions de Moïse," in <i>Patrologia Orientalis 27</i>.1-2 [Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1954], 130-31).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-33"><a href="#ref-footnote-33">33</a> Novatian, <i>The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters</i>, trans. Russell J. deSimone (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1974), 96.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-34"><a href="#ref-footnote-34">34</a> Trans. <i>A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church</i> (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1840), 3:56.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-44838747661966623602022-06-04T20:14:00.007+02:002022-06-20T01:57:03.152+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (5): "I too am a witness...and the Child whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 43:10)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. Isaiah 43:10 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b style="text-align: left;"><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. The Gospel of John's Use of Isaiah 43:10</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><span><b><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. Isaiah 43:10 in Early Patristic Literature</a></b></span></div><div style="width: 667.2px;"><b> <a href="#osec3_1" name="otit3_1">3.1. <i>Ascension of Isaiah</i></a></b></div><div style="width: 667.2px;"><b> <a href="#osec3_2" name="otit3_2">3.2. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div style="width: 667.2px;"><b> <a href="#osec3_3" name="otit3_3">3.3. Origen of Alexandria</a></b></div><div style="width: 667.2px;"><b> <a href="#osec3_4" name="otit3_4">3.4. Eusebius of Caesarea</a></b></div><div style="width: 667.2px;"><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. Conclusion</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. Isaiah 43:10 in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">As we continue our series looking at Christological interpretation of Isaiah in the early Church, we move back into the part of the book (chs. 40-55) known to biblical scholars as Second Isaiah, which mentions Cyrus by name and was therefore written long after the death of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> The passage that concerns us here is part of a speech addressed by Yahweh to Israel (Isaiah 43:1-13).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">10 You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. 12 I am the one who declared and saved and proclaimed, not some strange god among you; you are my witnesses, says the Lord, and I am God. 13 Indeed, since that day I am he; there is no one who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can hinder it? (Isaiah 43:10-13 NRSV)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The translation above from the Masoretic Text (MT) conveys one of the Hebrew Bible's most emphatic biblical declarations of God's unique divinity vis-à-vis all other reality. The addressees, Israel, are named as God's witnesses to his divine identity and saving acts. However, in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures that was predominantly the Bible of the early Church, things take a different turn:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">10 Be my witnesses; I too am a witness, says the Lord God, and the servant whom I have chosen so that you may know and believe and understand that I am. Before me there was no other god, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I am God, and besides me there is none who saves. I declared and saved; I reproached, and there was no stranger among you. 12 You are my witnesses; I too am a witness, says the Lord God. 13 Even from the beginning there is also no one who rescues from my hands; I will do it, and who will turn it back? (Isaiah 43:10-13 NETS)<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Notice that, unlike in the MT, in the LXX God declares <i>himself </i>to be a witness in vv. 10, 12. The change from "You are my witnesses...and the servant whom I have chosen" to "I too am a witness... and the servant whom I have chosen" introduces ambiguity over who this "servant" is. And this only adds one more to a series of references to an ambiguous "servant" in Second Isaiah.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">References to Yahweh's "servant" (Heb. עבד, <i>ʿęḇęḏ</i>) abound in Second Isaiah. Over the past two centuries, biblical scholars have noted four passages that single out an anonymous individual "servant" who is celebrated for his sacrificial life that brings redemption to others.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> Scholars distinguish these four "Servant Songs" (Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) from other Second Isaiah references to God's servant—including Isaiah 43:10 MT.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> While the latter seem obviously to refer to Israel/Jacob corporately, scholars have reached many different conclusions about the identity of the servant of the Servant Songs. It has even been called an "insoluble" problem.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Christian interpreters of Isaiah, have, from the earliest times, interpreted most of the references to a singular "servant" in Isaiah—both inside and outside of the Servant Songs—to refer to Christ. Matthew 12:15-21, for instance, quotes the first Servant Song (Isaiah 42:1-4) and applies it to Jesus.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> And the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) is a key text that the NT writers use to understand the significance of Jesus' death.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">An interesting feature of Second Isaiah LXX is that it consistently renders references to the <i>ʿęḇęḏ</i> into Greek as <i>pais</i>. This word has a broad semantic range that includes the meaning "servant" but also "child," either with a focus on prepubescent age <i>or </i>on the person's status as someone's offspring (hence "son"/"daughter").<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> The LXX translator obviously intended <i>pais</i> to mean "servant," corresponding to <i>ʿęḇęḏ</i>, but once Christian interpreters had applied the word to Christ, whom they understood to be God's Son, the sense "child" or "son" would have come into mind. Indeed, this move would have been aided by the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 9:5 LXX—the text discussed in my <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/05/reading-isaiah-like-early-christian-4.html" target="_blank">previous article</a>—where "child" translates <i>paidion</i>, a diminutive of <i>pais</i> that always means "child," not "servant."<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> Where the Book of Acts refers to Jesus as God's <i>pais</i> (3:13; 3:26; 4:27; 4:30), with obvious dependence on Second Isaiah, it is not clear whether the sense "servant" or "child/son" is in view; English translations differ. However, given that David is also called God's <i>pais</i> in 4:25, "servant" is more likely.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> The qualification "whom I have chosen" (<i>hon exelexamēn</i>) might seem incongruous with "son," since one does not choose one's "son" except with adoption. However, in Luke's Transfiguration account, the heavenly voice declares Jesus to be "my chosen Son" (<i>ho huios mou ho eklelegmenos</i>), and Luke clearly does not regard Jesus as God's adopted son.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. The Gospel of John's Use of Isaiah 43:10</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;">The statement </span><i style="text-align: justify;">ʾ<sup>a</sup>nî hûʾ</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> ("I [am] he"), which occurs in vv. 10, 13 MT (along with a few other passages, mostly in Isaiah),<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> is a succinct declaration of Yahweh's absolute deity that is typically translated in the LXX as </span><i>egō eimi</i>, "I am [he]". Such is the case here, in 43:10 LXX.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> The absolute declaration ἐγώ εἰμι is famously used seven times by Jesus in the Gospel of John, and New Testament scholars widely agree that it is intended to echo God's use of <i>egō eimi</i> in Isaiah LXX.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> But one can go further and argue that two of Jesus' <i>egō eimi </i>sayings in John are specifically intended to echo Isaiah 43:10. I have written about this literary dependency in greater detail <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns_23.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>;<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> for our purposes here, it suffices to point out the close parallel between the following:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he (<i>hina gn</i><i>ōste kai pisteus</i><i>ēte kai sun</i><i>ēte hoti eg</i><i>ō eimi</i>, Isaiah 43:10 LXX)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">and</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">...for unless you believe that I am he (<i>ean gar mē piseusēte hoti egō eimi</i>), you will die in your sins (John 8:24)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur you may believe that I am he. (<i>hina pisteus</i><i>ēte hotan gen</i><i>ētai hoti egō eimi</i>) (John 13:19)</div><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">While we lack any quotation of Isaiah 43:10-13 in the New Testament, John's allusions to it in the <i style="text-align: justify;">egō eimi </i><span style="text-align: justify;">sayings of Jesus show that he wants us to identify Jesus with God. The mysterious wording of Isaiah 43:10 LXX facilitates this. The line before the <i>hina</i>-clause just quoted reads, <i>kag</i></span><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ō martus, legei kyrios ho theos, kai ho pais, hon exelexam</i></span><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ēn</i></span>. An early Christian reader would probably have read thus:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I also am a witness, says the Lord God, and [so is] the Son, whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"></sup></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="text-align: justify;">The following rendering is, however, also syntactically possible:</span></div><div><blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">I also am a witness, says the Lord God, and [I am] the Son, whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he</span><span style="text-align: justify;">.</span><sup id="ref-footnote-15" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We cannot know which of these two readings John followed, but since he places on Jesus' lips a saying formed from the last clause of this verse, it seems clear that he has understood the full statement as applicable to the Son and not only the Father. That is, it is not just that the Son joins the Father as a witness to the Father's deity, but that the Son joins the Father as a witness to their joint deity.</div><div><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="text-align: justify;">Of course, we cannot be certain of John's interpretation of Isaiah 43:10, since we only have his allusions to it. However, further evidence that this interpretation had currency in the early Church can be found in early patristic writings.</span></div><div><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. Isaiah 43:10 in Early Patristic Literature</a></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#otit3_1" name="osec3_1">3.1. <i>Ascension of Isaiah</i></a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The <i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>is a Jewish Christian apocalypse that scholars regard as a two-part work, with chapters 6-11 dating from the late first century, and chapters 1-5 from the early second century<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup>—roughly contemporaneous, that is, with the date range usually assigned to the Gospel of John. <i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>4 foretells the coming of an Antichrist figure named Beliar and states the following about him:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>And he will do whatever he wants in the world; he will do and speak like the Beloved, and he will say, 'I am the Lord, and there was no one before me.' And all the people in the world will believe in him. And they shall sacrifice to him and serve him, when they shall say: This is the Lord, and besides him there is no other. (<i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>4.6-8).<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The Beloved is <i>Ascension of Isaiah</i>'s usual term for Christ. Thus, the apocalypse describes Beliar as speaking like the Beloved, but the words that it attributes to Beliar (and then to his followers as they worship him) appear to be a paraphrase of Isaiah 43:10-11 LXX:<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I am the Lord, and there was no one before me... This is the Lord, and besides him there is no other (<i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>4.6, 8)<span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">...I am he. Before me there was no other god, nor shall there be any after me. I am God, and besides me there is none who saves.<span style="text-align: left;"> (Isaiah 43:10-11 NETS)</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It would appear to follow that, if Beliar "speaks like the Beloved" when he arrogates to himself the words of Isaiah 43:10-11, the Beloved <i>rightfully </i>speaks the words of Isaiah 43:10-11 about himself. Thus, it seems that the author of <i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>agrees with the Gospel of John—again, only implicitly through allusions—that God's declaration of his deity in Isaiah 43:10 also applies to Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#otit3_2" name="osec3_2">3.2. Irenaeus of Lyons</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from Isaiah 43:10 in his famous five-volume work <i>Against Heresies</i>. In Book 3 he writes,</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Therefore neither the Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the apostles ever called God, in the proper sense of the word, anyone who was not the true God; neither have they called Lord, in an absolute way, anyone other than God the Father, who rules over all things, and his Son, who has received from his Father sovereignty over all creation. (<i>Adv. Haer. </i>3.6.1)<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup></blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Having quoted several OT passages to substantiate this, he continues:</div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">So no one else, as I have just said, is called God or Lord, except He who is God and Lord of all things—he who said to Moses, 'I am who I am', and: 'Thus shall you speak to the children of Israel: He who is has sent me to you'—and his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes children of God those who believe in his name. It is still the same when the Son said to Moses: 'I came down to deliver this people.' It is indeed he, in fact, who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. So then, through the Son, who is in the Father and has the Father in him, the God "who is" manifested himself, the Father bearing witness to the Son and the Son announcing the Father, according to what Isaiah also says: 'I am a witness, says the Lord God, as well as the Child<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe and understand that I am.' (<i>Adv. Haer. </i>3.6.2)</div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Irenaeus quotes from Isaiah 43:10 again in 4.5.1 and 4.20.8, but these passages add little to what is already evident from the above about how he understood the text. For Irenaeus, Isaiah 43:10 is a proof text about the absolutely unique deity of the Father <i>and the Son</i>.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit3_3" name="osec3_3">3.3. Origen of Alexandria</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">This great third-century theologian refers to our text in four separate passages, of which we will discuss three.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> In his <i>Commentary on John</i>, as well as in his <i>Exhortation to Martyrdom</i>, Origen interprets Isaiah 43:10 to mean that the Father is a witness, and so is the Son:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">For we have noticed that God confesses that he is a witness, and declares the same thing about the Christ, exhorting all to become imitators of himself and the Christ, insofar as they witness to the things to which it is necessary to witness. For he says, ‘Become my witnesses; I, too, am a witness, says the Lord God, and the servant<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup> whom I choose.’ (Commentary on John 2.209)<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> </blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">And in Isaiah the One who exhorts us to martyrdom joins in bearing witness to this with His Son. The passage reads, ‘You are my witnesses, and I am a witness, says the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen’. (<i>Exhortation to Martyrdom</i> 34)<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup> </blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Origen quotes the passage in a more technical theological context in the <i>Dialogue with Heraclides</i>, which requires some background. This text was only discovered in 1941 and "consists of the minutes of a discussion held at a synod of bishops summoned to discuss the opinions of a certain Bishop Heraclides whose orthodoxy has been called in question".<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> After Bishop Heraclides opens with a credal statement, Origen begins his "cross-examination, which is designed to elicit from Heraclides a confession of the pre-existence and independent existence of the Son."<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> The crux of it is thus:</div><div id="demo-1"><i></i></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1"><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen:</i> Is the Father God?</div><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Heraclides:</i> Assuredly.</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen: </i>Is the Son distinct from the Father?</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Heraclides:</i> Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen: </i>While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God? <i>Heraclides:</i> He himself is also God.</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen:</i> And do two Gods become a unity?</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Heraclides: </i>Yes.</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen: </i>Do we confess two Gods?</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Heraclides: </i>Yes. The power is one.</div></i><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Origen: </i>But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one… </div></i></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Origen goes on to discuss Genesis 2:24, which says that a man and his wife become one flesh, and 1 Corinthians 6:17, which says that "anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." He continues:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these—God. That is why we understand in this sense ‘I and the Father are one.’</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">After condemning those who abolish the distinction between Father and Son and those who deny the deity of Christ, Origen asks:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: ‘Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,’ and ‘I am and there is no God but me’? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe… in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus’ saying, ‘I and my Father are one.’ (Origen, <i>Dialogue with Heraclides</i> 4)<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1"></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The passages quoted are Isaiah 43:10 and Deuteronomy 32:39. Origen anticipates an objection to the binitarian theology he has just outlined, namely that if these scriptural texts apply only to the Father, the Son is excluded from being God. Hence, Origen argues that these statements are made by the Father and the Son as a unity. Had Origen elaborated on this interpretation, he probably would have noted—as he did in his other writings—that both the Father and his <i>pais</i> are named as witnesses in the former text.<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit3_4" name="osec3_4">3.4. Eusebius of Caesarea</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Eusebius' work <i>Eclogae Propheticae </i>("Prophetic Extracts"), written in the early fourth century (before the Council of Nicaea) has not been translated into English. It makes a passing reference to our text, and my attempt at a translation is as follows:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">‘Be my witnesses, I too am a witness, says the Lord God, and the child<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup> whom I have chosen.’ And who might be the child whom the Lord God has chosen, whom also he reckons with himself that he will be a witness with him when they testify, or the one about whom also it had earlier been said, ‘Jacob is my child, I will lay hold of him’ [cf. Isa. 42:1], and the rest? Which things have clearly been prophesied about our Saviour and Lord Jesus. (<i>Eclogae Propheticae </i>4.21)<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Eusebius does not comment on the Christological significance of the text here, merely echoing the widely held Christian viewpoint that the <i>pais </i>in this passage (and others in Second Isaiah) is Christ. Later, in his <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i>, he offers a more detailed comment, showing that he understands the Lord God to be identifying himself with his divine Servant (as per the second rendering suggested in section 2 above).</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Let the witnesses of these events come, and <i>let </i>those who have testified <i>be justified</i>, since <i>even I God </i>will be their <i>witness, and the servant whom I have chosen, </i>concerning whom he said above: 'Behold, my servant whom I have appointed, my chosen one, my soul receives him favorably'. Therefore, <i>God </i>himself is <i>even this servant, my chosen one</i>, as the Savior made clear in the Gospels when he said: 'Whoever acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge him before my Father who is in heaven.' I will serve as a witness for my witnesses, <i>so that you may know and believe and understand that I am. Before me there was no other god, nor shall there be after me... </i>For if one is from the beginning, this one must be divine, as the theology concerning his one and only Son counsels. Continuing on with delivering his instruction, the Word says: <i>I am God, and besides me there is none who saves. </i>And he affirmed this when he proclaimed above: <i>Even I, the Lord God, am the servant whom I have chosen</i>, and so he does not fail to connect the present passage with the theological discussion above concerning the <i>servant, whom he has chosen. I am God, and besides me there is none who saves, and I am the servant whom I have chosen. </i>For he said that he was a <i>witness, and the servant whom he has chosen, </i>and so we conclude that this <i>God who saves</i> is <i>also the servant, whom he has chosen. </i>And although the text says: <i>Besides me there is none who saves, </i>it is not denying that the <i>servant whom he has chosen </i>is indeed a Savior. (<i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>278-79)<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Although Eusebius is often said to have had Arian sympathies, his Christological reading of Isaiah 43:10 is actually bolder than those of Irenaeus and Origen, in that he has the Lord God saying, "I...am the <i>pais </i>whom I have chosen."</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. Conclusion</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">We have seen that the Septuagint Greek translation of Isaiah 43:10 introduced ambiguity into the identity of the Hebrew's text's "servant" (<i style="text-align: justify;">ʿęḇęḏ</i><span style="text-align: justify;">) in two ways. First, it changed the subject from second-person to first-person, so that God says "Be my witnesses. I too am a witness," rather than "You are my witnesses," which leaves the ensuing "and the servant whom I have chosen" unidentified. Second, it translated </span><i style="text-align: justify;">ʿęḇęḏ </i><span style="text-align: justify;">with the Greek word <i>pais</i>, which can mean "servant" but also "child" or "son." This—in the context of the wider Christological interpretation of the Servant in Isaiah 40-55—enabled early Christian exegetes to read Isaiah 43:10 as a statement about the Father and the Son:</span></div><div id="demo-1"><span style="text-align: justify;"></span></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1"><span style="text-align: justify;">I too am a witness, says the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he. Before me there was no other god, nor shall there be any after me. I am God, and besides me there is none who saves.</span></div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1"><span style="text-align: justify;">Significantly, early Christian exegetes understood both witnesses, Father and Son, to be testifying in their own person "that I am he. Before me there was no other god," etc. This exegetical move is evident already in the late first and early second century in the Gospel of John and the <i>Ascension of Isaiah</i>, and continues in the second- and third-century Fathers Irenaeus of Lyons and Origen of Alexandria.</span></div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> See Isaiah 44:28, 45:1, 13.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Moisés Silva, "Isaiah," in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), <i>A New English Translation of the Septuagint</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 857.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> James M. Ward, "The Servant Songs in Isaiah," <i>Review & Expositor 65 </i>(1968): 433-446.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> See also Isaiah 41:8, 9; 42:19; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 50:10.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Leland Edward Wilshire, "The Servant-City: A New Interpretation of the 'Servant of the Lord' in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah," <i>Journal of Biblical Literature 94 </i>(1975): 356.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Interestingly, Matthew translates the Hebrew text, whereas the Septuagint actually disambiguates the "servant" of the first Servant Song by identifying him as Jacob and Israel: "Iakob is my servant...Israel is my chosen" (Isa. 42:1 NETS). This would still not have stopped early Christian interpreters from identifying the servant with Christ, however, since Christ was regarded as the true Israel (cf. the interpretation of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:14).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> See BDAG 750</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> See BDAG 749. A diminutive is a suffix added to a word to show affection or emphasise smallness; for instance, "piglet" is a diminutive of "pig."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> The same is true in <i>Didache </i>9.2-3, 10.2-3, where both David and Jesus are called God's παῖς. Cf. also <i>1 Clement </i>59.2-4; <i>Diognetus </i>8.9-9.1; <i>Martyrdom of Polycarp </i>14.1-3; 20.2. In the latter, παῖς almost certainly means "son": "God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed [παῖς] Jesus Christ"; "bring us all...into his heavenly kingdom through his only-begotten [<i>pais</i>], Jesus Christ".</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> See Luke 1:35, for instance, which interprets the virgin birth as a proof (though not necessarily the cause) of Jesus' divine Sonship.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> See, e.g., Deut. 32:39, Isa. 41:4; 43:25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> The <i>ʾ<sup>a</sup>nî hûʾ</i> in 43:13 is not preserved in the LXX translation.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> "An analysis of the application of ἐγώ εἰμι in its bipartite form in the Fourth Gospel leads one to conclude that the key to a proper understanding of these Johannine declarations is the distinctive use of this succinct expression in LXX Isaiah as a rendering for</div><div style="text-align: justify;">אני הוא ... Indeed, the interpretative process encountered in connection with Jesus' absolute ἐγώ ἐιμι statements can be described as an important witness to the fourth evangelist's familiarity with, and indebtedness to, Isaianic traditions, clearly extending far beyond the four direct citations taken from this prophetic book" (Catrin H. Williams, <i>I Am He: The Interpretation of ʾAnî Hûʾ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature</i> [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 299); "The Gospel of John...places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement 'I am he', in Hebrew <i>ʾ<sup>a</sup>nî hûʾ</i>, usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as <i>egō eimi</i> ('I am'), the form in which it appears in John's Gospel... It is certainly not accidental that, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are seven occurrences of <i>ʾ<sup>a</sup>nî hûʾ</i> and two of the emphatic variation <i>ānokî ānokî hûʾ</i> (Isa. 43:25; 51:12), in John there are seven absolute 'I am' sayings, with the seventh repeated twice (18:5, 6, 8) for the sake of an emphatic climax (thus seven or nine in both cases). The series of sayings thus comprehensively identifies Jesus with the God of Israel who sums up his identity in the declaration 'I am he'. More than that, they identify Jesus as the eschatological revelation of the unique identity of God, predicted by Deutero-Isaiah" (Richard Bauckham, <i>Jesus and the God of Israel</i> [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 39-40).</div></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> See also <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns_27.html#osec4_4" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Because the verb "to be" is elliptical in God's initial statement, it could also be understood as elliptical in the statement about <i>ho pais</i>. Notably, in the Hebrew (where the subject is "you" rather than "I"), the syntax works this way: "You are my witnesses... and [you are] my servant, whom I have chosen..." However, this reading is rather unnatural, as it seems to conflate the speaker (God) with his <i>pais</i>. It would likely have been seen as risky after the rise of the Sabellian heresy in the early third century; yet we will see below that Eusebius follows it in the early fourth century.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> "the date of the apocalypse is now agreed within relatively close parameters... The dominant view is that the apocalypse contains some first-century material, and that this first-century element is given by the substance of chs. 6-11. It is disputed whether the material in chs. 1-5 comes from the first or the second century CE, the greater weight of scholarship preferring the second century." (Jonathan Knight, "The Christology of the Ascension of Isaiah: Docetic or Polymorphic?", in Jonathan Knight and Kevin Sullivan (eds.), <i>The Open Mind: Essays in Honour of Christopher Rowland</i> [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 155).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> This is my translation from the Latin synopsis in Paolo Bettiolo, Alda Giambelluca Kossova, Claudio Leonardi, Enrico Norelli, and Lorenzo Perrone, <i>Ascensio Isaiae: Textus </i>(Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 375, which in turn is translated from the Ethiopic in which alone this part of the book is preserved.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Unfortunately a comparison cannot be made in Greek, since <i>Ascension of Isaiah </i>4.6-8 survives only in an Ethiopic version. God makes similar statements in Isaiah 44:6, 45:5-6, 45:21, and 46:9 to the effect that "I am God, and there is no other beside me." Jonathan M. Knight describes Beliar's claim as "words which are parodied from Isa. 45.18, that 'I am the LORD, and before me there was no one'" (<i>Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah </i>[Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 50). Enrico Norelli states in his commentary (in Italian) that the language appears to from Isaiah 47:8-10, where the daughter of Babylon is said to declare blasphemously, "I am and there is no other". However, he goes on to argue that the language is drawn from that of the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20:2-3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 (<i>Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius</i> [Turnhout: Brepols, 1995], 251-52). However, it remains true that Isaiah 43:10 corresponds more closely to Beliar's words than any other biblical text. In no other Isaianic text does God say that there is no other <i>before </i>him, and the Decalogue statements are phrased in the second person. Of course, the Christological implications remain the same, no matter which definitive biblical statement of unique deity is being implicitly applied to Christ.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Translations are based on the French translation of Adeline Rousseau, <i>Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies</i> (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1984), based on his <i>Sources chrétiennes </i>critical text.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> Of course, as with the Book of Acts and other references in Greek literature to Jesus as God's παῖς, we cannot be certain whether Irenaeus understood the word in the sense "child/son" or "servant." That Irenaeus regards Isaiah 43:10 as a proof text concerning the Son's relationship with the Father suggests the reading "child/son," however.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> The fourth is <i>Contra Celsum </i>2.9. Origen does not directly link our text to Christology, but discusses it in a Christological context: "To this we will reply that not even we suppose that the body of Jesus, which could then be seen and perceived by the senses, was God. And why do I say the body? For not even his soul was God; for he said of it: ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.’ However, according to the doctrine of the Jews it is believed to be God who says: ‘I am the Lord, the God of all flesh.’ And, ‘Before me there was no other God, and after me there will be none.’ He was using the soul and body of a prophet as an instrument. According to the Greeks, it is believed to be a god who is speaking and being heard through the Pythian priestess, who says ‘But I know the number of the sand and the measure of the sea, And I understand the dumb and I hear him that speaketh not.’ Similarly in our opinion it was the divine Logos and Son of the God of the universe that spoke in Jesus, saying: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’, and ‘I am the door’, and ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven’, and any other such saying. Therefore, we bring the charge against the Jews that they have not believed in Jesus as God, because he had been everywhere witnessed by the prophets as being a great power and a God like the God and Father of the universe. We say that it was to him that the Father gave the command in the Mosaic story of creation, when He said, ‘Let there be light’, and ‘Let there be a firmament’, and all the other things which God commanded to come into being. To him also He said, ‘Let us make man according to our image and likeness.’ And when the Logos was commanded, he made everything that the Father enjoined him." (trans. Henry Chadwick, <i>Origen: Contra Celsum</i> [London: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 73).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> Again, it is the translator's decision whether to render the Greek παῖς as "servant," "child" or "son."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> trans. Ronald E. Heine, <i>Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10</i> (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 151.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> trans. Rowan A. Greer, <i>Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works</i> (New York: Paulist, 1979), 66. The Greek word translated "Son" by Greer is again παῖς.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick, "Dialogue with Heraclides," in <i>The Library of Christian Classics, Volume II: Alexandrian Christianity</i> (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 430).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> Oulton and Chadwick, "Dialogue with Heraclides," 433.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> trans. Oulton and Chadwick, "Dialogue with Heraclides," 438-40.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> With regard to the latter text, he might have pointed out that God is spoken of in the first person in Deuteronomy 32:39-42 and in the third person in 32:43, with the latter text being applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:6.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> Again, "child" translates <i>pais</i>, and could also be rendered "servant."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> Greek text in Thomas Gaisford, Eusebii Pamphili, Episcopi Caesariensis: Eclogae Propheticae [Oxonii: E Typographeo Academico, 1842], 202.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> Eusebius of Caesarea, <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i>, trans. Jonathan J. Armstrong, ed. Joel C. Elowsky (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 217-18. It should be noted that Eusebius' <i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>is usually dated to after the Council of Nicaea, unlike the other works of Eusebius cited in this series. Armstrong suggests that the comments on Isaiah 60 allude to Constantine's baptism in 337, which would imply that the commentary was finished between that date and Eusebius' death in 339.</li></ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-75179482191739764652022-05-22T16:17:00.004+02:002022-06-20T02:00:42.358+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (4): "A child was born for us...named Angel of Great Counsel" (Isaiah 9:6)<div id="demo-1">
<a href="#sec_1" name="ref_1">Introduction</a> </div><div><a href="#sec_2" name="ref_2">The Septuagint Greek Translation of Isaiah 9:5-6</a></div><div><a href="#sec_3" name="ref_3">Isaiah 9:6 in the New Testament</a> </div><div><a href="#sec_4" name="ref_4">Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 9:6</a></div><div> <a href="#sec_4a" name="ref_4a">Justin Martyr</a></div><div> <a href="#sec_4b" name="ref_4b">Irenaeus</a></div><div> <a href="#sec_4c" name="ref_4c">Tertullian</a></div><div> <a href="#sec_4d" name="ref_4d">Origen</a></div><div> <a href="#sec_4e" name="ref_4e">Novatian</a></div><div><a href="#sec_5" name="ref_5">Conclusion</a>
<div><a href="#sec_6" name="ref_6">Addendum on Eusebius' <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i></a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#ref_1" name="sec_1">Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Most Christians who hear the words of Isaiah 9:6 feel instinctively that they are hearing a prophecy about the birth and Messianic destiny of Jesus:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">6 For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7 NRSV)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Handel's <i>Messiah </i>has certainly reinforced the Christological interpretation of this text in the popular Christian imagination. It may surprise some readers, therefore, to learn that many biblical scholars today maintain that, at the grammatical-historical level, this text is <i>not </i>a prophecy about a future Messiah. H. G. M. Williamson's comments are typical:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">...the passage as a whole seems to announce that its readers are living at a turning point in the [Davidic] dynasty's fortunes and that the long-hoped-for rule of justice and righteousness is about to begin. None of this implies a break in dynastic rule or a restoration of the monarchy. The predominant thought of the passage neither demands, nor is even particularly suitable to, a postexilic date.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">He argues that the birth or accession of a Davidic king, possibly Hezekiah or Josiah, adequately explains the historical occasion for this oracle. Joseph A. Fitzmyer similarly scolds scholars guilty of "reading [a Messianic] meaning into this...Isaian passage."<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> And John J. Collins states that "Modern critical scholarship...has generally rejected a messianic interpretation" of this text.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This observation underscores the distinction made in the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/04/the-christological-significance-of.html" target="_blank">first article in this series</a> between the grammatical-historical, <i>literal</i> meaning of texts, which is the the primary interest of biblical criticism, and the <i>spiritual</i> meaning of texts, the <i>sensus plenior</i>, which is the primary interest of theologians and anyone reading Scripture through the mystical lens of Christian faith. It is the latter sense that is the focus of the series, but it is important not to fall into a false dichotomy between the two senses.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Strictly speaking, if we limit ourselves to the grammatical-historical sense, we will have to surrender Isaiah 9:6 and many of our other favourite Messianic texts, and admit that the New Testament writers and even Jesus himself were poor exegetes. Conversely, if we go beyond the literal sense to assign a spiritual, Messianic significance to Isaiah 9:6, we should likewise be prepared to do so for other texts, even if they are not quoted in the New Testament.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#ref_2" name="sec_2">The Septuagint Greek Translation of Isaiah 9:5-6</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It is immediately apparent from reading Isaiah 9:5-6<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> in the <i>New English Translation of the Septuagint </i>that the Septuagint Greek differs markedly from the Hebrew Masoretic Text:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"><blockquote>5 because a child was born for us, a son also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him. 6 His sovereignty is great, and his peace has no boundary upon the throne of Dauid and his kingdom, to make it prosper and to uphold it with righteousness and with judgment from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord Sabaoth will do these things.</blockquote></div><div>John J. Collins' essay, "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," provides a very helpful explanation of the nuances of the LXX translation. Collins comments on the titles given to the child in Isaiah 9:6 MT indicate the "ideal qualities" of a human king, "however hyperbolic they may be."<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> The most striking of the titles, for Collins, are El Gibbor, "mighty God," and Abi ʿAd, "everlasting father." The LXX translation, however, "departs strikingly from the Hebrew at several points." There are indications in the preceding verses that the translator has readdressed the oracle "to a setting in the second century B.C.E. rather than to the time of Isaiah."<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> The rendering of two different Hebrew words with the Greek παιδίον ("child") in Isaiah 7:16 and 9:5 points to an effort to systematise these two figures. Coming to the titles of the child in Isaiah 9:5(6), the Greek combines the two titles "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God" (MT פלא יועץ אל גבור) into one, <i>megalēs boulēs angelos</i> ("Angel/Messenger of Great Counsel"). The following titles, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (MT אביעד שר־שלום), are translated, <i>egō gar axō eirēnēn epi tous archontas </i>("for I will bring peace upon the princes"). Collins notes, "The translator evidently read אבי as a verb and עד as a preposition."<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> שר ("prince") may have been understood generically and thus made plural. There are some textual difficulties in the Hebrew at the end of the verse, possibly reflecting a lost fifth title of the child that the LXX translates with the added words, <i>eirēnēn kai hugieian autō</i> ("peace and health to him").</div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Scholars differ on the significance of <i>angelos</i> in the LXX translation—a word that, as we will see below, played a key role in early Christian interpretation of this text. By the time of the NT, <i>angelos</i> was largely a technical term meaning "angel," with the broader sense "messenger" having nearly faded at least in Christian circles.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> In the LXX, while <i>angelos</i> is the usual translation of Hebrew מלאך, it is also applied to human messengers with some frequency. Either way, the word emphasises the child's instrumental agency on God's behalf. Just as the Targum has demoted the child by taking his loftiest titles away and applying them to God,<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> so the LXX translator may be demoting the child by reducing his status from "God" to angel or messenger. This is not necessarily a mistranslation of אל; Collins notes that the word is also translated <i>angelos</i> in Job 20:15,<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> where the theological stakes are lower. Collins is inclined to translate <i>angelos</i> in Isaiah 9:5 as angel, and to understand it "not so much a demotion as a clarification of his status in relation to the Most High."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> To what extent the the LXX translator wished to assign the child to the category "angel" is unclear (just as it is unclear to what extent the original author wished to assign the child to the category "god").</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#ref_3" name="sec_3">Isaiah 9:6 in the New Testament</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Considering how easily an application of this oracle to Jesus arises in the minds of any Christian reader (even without Handel's help), and the almost universal messianic interpretation of the passage in the Church Fathers (as we shall see), it is surprising that Isaiah 9:6 is never quoted in the NT. This should remind us that the NT is nothing like a Christian commentary on the OT. It does not provide an exhaustive account of how the early Church interpreted the Jewish Scriptures; not even close. In many cases, we must rely on the testimony of the Church Fathers to learn how a particular passage was interpreted in the early Church.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Nevertheless, there is strong circumstantial evidence in the NT itself for a Christological interpretation of Isaiah 9:6. In particular, the Gospel of Matthew narrates how Jesus "left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali" (Matt. 4:13 NRSV), and interprets this event as having fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah. Matthew then quotes from Isaiah 8:23-9:1, which is the beginning of the same oracle that contains Isaiah 9:6. Moreover, there is a possible allusion to Isaiah 9:7 in Luke 1:32-33, although this Lucan prophecy about Jesus is probably based mainly on 2 Samuel 7:8-16.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#ref_4" name="sec_4">Early Patristic Interpretation of Isaiah 9:6</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">As the Septuagint was much more widely used than the Hebrew Bible in the early Church (at least, outside Jewish Christian communities in Judaea and surrounds), extant early Christian interpretations of Isaiah 9:5(6) relies on the LXX version, with its distinctive phrase "<i>angelos</i> of Great Counsel."<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#ref_4a" name="sec_4a">Justin Martyr</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The earliest extant Christian interpreter of our text is Justin Martyr. In his first Apology (c. 153 A.D.),<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> Justin writes, </div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">1 And how Christ, after his birth, was going to escape the attention of other human beings until he grew to manhood, which in fact happened—hear the things that were said in advance with reference to this. 2 They are these: 'A child was born for us, and a young man was given for us, whose rule is on his shoulders,' signifying the power of the cross, on which he placed his shoulders when he was crucified, as will be shown more clearly as the discourse proceeds. (<i>1 Apol</i>. 35.1-2)<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup></blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Justin also cites our text twice in his <i>Dialogue with Trypho </i>(c. 160 A.D., but with some material possibly dating back to c. 135):<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">And, in calling him <i>angel of great counsel</i>, did not Isaiah predict that Christ would be a teacher of those truths which he expounded when he came upon this earth? For he alone openly taught the great counsels that the Father intended for those who either were, or shall be, pleasing to him, as well as for those men or angels who withdrew from his will. (<i>Dial. </i>76.3)<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">if you had known who he is who at one time is called <i>angel of great counsel</i>, and <i>Man</i> by Ezekiel, and <i>Son of Man</i> by Daniel, and a <i>child</i> by Isaiah, and <i>Christ</i> and <i>God</i> [and] <i>who is to be adored</i> by David, and <i>Christ</i> and <i>Stone</i> by many prophets… you would not have blasphemed him who has come, and assumed human nature, and suffered, and ascended into heaven. (Dial. 126.1)</div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Justin understands <i>angelos</i> to mean "angel" in Isaiah 9:5 LXX. This is clear, not only from his distinction between "men or angels" in the immediate context, but also from Justin's repeated statements elsewhere that Christ is God, and man, and angel.<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup> Justin explains his use of this term for Christ in terms of Christ's function as the Father's agent in revelation:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">I shall attempt to prove my assertion, namely, that there exists and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is also called an <i>Angel</i>, because he proclaims to man whatever the Creator of the world—above whom there is no other God—wishes to reveal to them. (<i>Dial. </i>56.4)</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Justin later mentions that the one who appeared to Moses at the burning bush "is termed an angel and is God" (<i>kai angelos kaloumenos kai theos huparch</i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ōn</i></span>, <i>Dial. </i>60.4).<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> This is a case in point of what Charles A. Gieschen has famously called "angelomorphic Christology." Explaining his preference for this term over "angel Christology," Gieschen writes:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">'angel' terminology also raises the ontological question that has moved some interpreters to dismiss <i>a priori</i> the impact of such concepts on early Christology. It is crucial to understand that distinctions which early Christian documents make between Christ and the 'created' angels do not preclude the use of angel-morphic traditions in expressing Christology. Angelic forms and functions do not of necessity imply a nature that is less than divine. This conclusion is evident from OT texts which equate God and his angel.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Justin makes just such a distinction, by saying that the pre-existent Christ is <i>called </i>an angel because he brings God's revelations to man (functional), but <i>is </i>God (ontological).</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#ref_4b" name="sec_4b">Irenaeus</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The next writer to cite Isaiah 9:5 is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who wrote c. 180 A.D. What is fascinating about Irenaeus' use of this text is that, while he is aware of and interprets the LXX title "Angel of Great Counsel," he is also aware—uniquely, among ante-Nicene Christian writers—that the title El Gibbor appears in the Hebrew text, and makes full Christological use of this:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Thus, then, does the Word of God in all things hold the primacy, for He is true man and Wonderful Counsellor and God the Mighty, calling man back again into communion with God, that by communion with Him we may have part in incorruptibility. (<i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i> 40)<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup></blockquote></div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">54 And again the same prophet says: A son is born to us and a child is given to us, and His name has been called, Wonderful Counsellor, God the Mighty. 55. And he calls Him ‘Wonderful Counsellor,’ even of the Father, whereby it is pointed out that it is with Him that the Father works all things whatsoever as we have in the first of the Mosaic books, which is entitled ‘Genesis’: And God said: let us make man according to our image and likeness. For He is here seen clearly, the Father addressing the Son, as Wonderful Counsellor of the Father. Now He is also our Counsellor, giving counsel—not constraining, as God, and nonetheless being ‘God the Mighty,’ he says—and giving counsel to leave off our ignorance and receive knowledge, and to go forth from error and come to truth, and to cast forth corruptibility and receive incorruptibility. (<i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching </i>54-55)</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Interestingly, Irenaeus quotes the LXX version of the text almost as if it were a separate prophecy from Isaiah:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">And again Isaias says: And they shall wish that they had been burnt with fire; for a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is set upon His shoulders; and His name is called Messenger of Great Counsel. For I will bring peace upon the princes, again peace and health to Him. Great is His empire, and of His peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to guide and to uphold with justice and right, from henceforth and for ever. For thereby it is proclaimed that the Son of God both is to be born and is to be everlasting king... But the words whose government is set upon His shoulders mean allegorically the Cross, on which He held His back when He was crucified; for what was and is an ignominy for Him, and because of Him, for us, the Cross, that, he says, is His government, that is, a sign of His empire. And he says Messenger of Great Counsel: messenger of the Father, whom he announced to us. (<i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching </i>56)</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Irenaeus follows Justin in interpreting the reference to "shoulders" as a prophecy of the cross of Christ, and in interpreting "Messenger/Angel of Great Counsel" functionally.<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> However, in commenting on the title "God the Mighty," he shows that he has access to a Jewish tradition of interpretation that was unknown to Justin.<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup></div></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#ref_4c" name="sec_4c">Tertullian</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Tertullian cites our text in three of his works, two of which are discussed here.<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> In <i>Against Marcion</i>, Tertullian echoes the view found in Justin and Irenaeus that "whose government is placed upon his shoulder" refers to the cross:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">For although death reigned from Adam until Christ, why should not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, ever since by dying on the tree of the Cross he drove out the kingdom of death? In the same sense also Isaiah says, Because to us a child is born: what is new in this, unless he is speaking of the Son of God? And, Unto us one is given, whose government is placed upon his shoulder: which of the kings ever displays the sign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather a crown upon his head or a sceptre in his hand, or some mark of appropriate apparel? No, only the new king of the new ages, Christ Jesus, <the king> of new glory, has lifted up upon his shoulder his own dominion and majesty, which is the Cross, so that from thenceforth, as our previous prophecy stated, he did as Lord reign from the tree. (<i>Against Marcion </i>3.19.2)<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">In another work, Tertullian explains—like Justin before him—that Christ is called an angel in this text in a functional, not ontological, sense:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Certainly he is described as the angel of great counsel, 'angel' meaning 'messenger', by a term of office, not of nature: for he was to announce to the world the Father's great project, that concerned with the restitution of man. Yet he is not on that account to be understood as an angel, in the sense of a sort of Gabriel or Michael. For the son also is sent by the lord of the vineyard to the husbandmen, as the servants too had been, to fetch of the fruits of it: but the son must not be reckoned one of the servants just because he succeeded to the servants' task. So I shall find it easier to say, if I have to, that the Son himself was the angel (that is, the messenger) of the Father, than that there was an angel in the Son. (<i>On the Flesh of Christ</i> 14.3).<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"> <b><a href="#ref_4d" name="sec_4d">Origen</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Tertullian's line of interpretation is found again in Origen.<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup> Origen also seems to think that the Son "became" an angel, for the sake of making angelic appearances.<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#ref_4e" name="sec_4e">Novatian</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">While our text is cited in other ante-Nicene writings,<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup> for sake of brevity we will only consider one more author: Origen's third-century contemporary Novatian, a Roman presbyter.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">In his work <i>On the Trinity </i>(more appropriately titled "The Rule of Truth"),<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup> Novatian argues at length that the angel who appeared to Hagar in Genesis 16 could not either have been God the Father nor an ontological angel, but rather one who is ontologically God but functionally God's angel or herald. Novatian uses Isaiah 9:5 as a proof text for the notion that Christ can be called "angel":</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">(7) Now Scripture portrays this angel as both Lord and God, for He would not have promised the blessing of progeny if He had not been both angel and God. Let the heretics try to explain away this passage. (8) Was it the Father who was seen by Hagar, or not? For it was stated that He was God. Far be it from us to call God the Father an angel, lest He be subject to another, whose angel He would be. (9) But they will say that He was an angel. If He was an angel, how could He possibly be God since this name has never been given to angels? However, if we examine both sides of the question, truth itself drives us to this conclusion: we must acknowledge that He was the Son of God. Because He is of God, He is rightly called God, since He is the Son of God; and because He is subject to the Father and herald of the Father’s will, he is proclaimed ‘Angel of Great Counsel.’ (10) Therefore, if this passage is not appropriate to the person of the Father, lest He be called an angel, nor to the person of an angel, lest He be called God, it does, however, suit the person of Christ, since He is not only God, inasmuch as He is the Son of God, but also an angel, inasmuch as He is the herald of the Father’s dispensation. Heretics must realize that they are acting contrary to the Scriptures when they say they believe that Christ was also an angel, but do not want to admit that He is also the God who they read came frequently to visit the human race in the Old Testament...It is quite evident, then, that it was not the Father who spoke to Hagar in the present passage but rather Christ, because He is God. The title of angel is also appropriate to Christ because He was made ‘the Angel of Great Counsel.’ He is an angel because He lays bare the heart of the Father, as John declares." (<i>de Trinitate</i> 18.7-10, 22)<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup> </blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#ref_5" name="sec_5">Conclusion</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Christian writers of the second and third centuries are united in interpreting Isaiah 9:6-7(5-6)—which, apart from Irenaeus, they appear to have known only via the LXX translation<sup id="ref-footnote-33"><a href="#footnote-33" rel="footnote">33</a></sup>—as a prophecy concerning Christ. The common themes that emerge from their exegesis include that (i) the reference to his rule being upon his shoulder foretells the power of Christ's cross and (ii) Christ is called Angel of Great Counsel, not because he is ontologically an angel, but because he, although God by nature, has the function of declaring the counsel of God the Father to God's creatures.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#ref_6" name="sec_6">Addendum on Eusebius' <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i></a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">I was able to access Eusebius' <i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>only after completing this article, and thus here reproduce most of his lengthy and insightful interpretation on this text, without any comment.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">What this is about he states next when he says: <i>Because a child was born for us, and a son also given to us, whose sovereignty is on his shoulder: and he is named messenger of great counsel. </i>And he was the one who was called <i>son </i>and <i>child </i>and <i>Emmanuel. </i>This is the third time in the same prophecy where the <i>son </i>is also called <i>child</i>... For this very reason the <i>child </i>is this <i>son</i>, who was given as a gift from God to those who have believed in him and who has many more names than those stated above. <i>And he has been named messenger of great counsel. </i>And although this name may seem rather ordinary, it points to something beyond mortal nature, even angelic. For he addressed him not simply as <i>messenger</i>, but as <i>messenger of great counsel. </i>And what else could <i>the great counsel </i>be except the <i>counsel </i>of the great God concerning the calling and salvation of all nations, which the <i>messenger </i>himself, our Savior, would minister in the benevolent <i>counsel </i>of the Father? According to the Hebrew Scriptures he has been honored with greater forms of address than <i>messenger</i>, for it is said that he bears <i>the government on his shoulder</i>. For the <i>government </i>of the prophesied <i>child </i>(that is, the glory and the honor and the kingdom) is the <i>government </i>that is <i>on his shoulder </i>and over all (clearly, the government should be understood as the arm of the divinity in him). He has been called <i>messenger of great counsel </i>because of his divinity, for he alone understands the secret things of the fatherly <i>counsel</i>, and he is the <i>messenger </i>to the worthy. We said that he has been deemed worthy of an even greater title than <i>messenger</i>, for the Hebrew text reads, as translated by Symmachus: <i>And his name will be called marvelous, able to advise, strong and powerful, eternal father, ruler of peace; </i>and Aquila says: <i>His name is called wonderful, counselor, strong, powerful, father still, ruler of peace; </i>and according to Theodotion's translation: <i>And she called his name wonderful, counselor, strong, master, eternal father, ruler of peace.</i></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">But instead of <i>strong, </i>the Hebrew text has <i>El, </i>which means God. For there are many passages in Scripture where <i>El </i>stands for God, and the text at hand should likewise be counted among them, for through the wording of the Hebrew God is proclaimed to be the <i>child born for us. </i>Accordingly, in the above prophecy concerning the <i>child born for us </i>and the <i>son given to us</i>, along with the other names and <i>El</i>, according to the Hebrew text, it is clear that the prophecy makes him known to be God. And so he is called <i>El Gibbor </i>in the Hebrew tongue. But Aquila translates this phrase as <i>strong, powerful</i>, and Symmachus does as well. Theodotion translated this phrase as <i>strong, master</i>, protector—among which titles it is probable that he included the name of God as the <i>child born </i>for us. And we would not miss the mark to translate the phrase <i>powerful God</i>, since it has been pointed out to us that the word <i>El </i>translates to 'God.' And so we have boldness to call him so. The phrase <i>El Gibbor </i>in the Hebrew tongue is translated <i>strong, powerful </i>in the Greek, and the name <i>Emmanuel </i>includes <i>El </i>in it and additionally takes on the phrase <i>God with us</i>. And such names of the revealed <i>child </i>present his nature as superior to that of a mere man. Now I suppose that there are those who distrust the Septuagint because it is silent concerning the true recipient of the portentous and surpassing greatness of these names, but in another way this is stated summarily in the literal meaning: <i>And he is named messenger of great counsel. </i>And how has he said <i>father of the coming age</i>, for we will understand that it is our father Adam who is being handed down who is of 'the present age' and of the mortal race of people. But 'just as in Adam we will all die,' according to the apostle, 'so we will all be made alive in Christ.' (<i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>65-66)<sup id="ref-footnote-34"><a href="#footnote-34" rel="footnote">34</a></sup></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div id="demo-1">
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> "Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39," in <i>King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar</i>, ed. John Day (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 257.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> <i>The One Who Is to Come </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 38).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," in <i>Scripture and Tradition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo</i>, ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 205. Collins, for his part, avers that whether the passage is messianic is a question of definition. If by "Messiah" one means a figure who would restore the monarchy after it was broken by the Babylonian exile, or certainly a figure who would literally usher in endless peace, then this text is not messianic. However, it is nonetheless "a reaffirmation of the mythology of kingship in the historical context," due to its idealised picture of what kingship could offer (<i>ibid.</i>, 212).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> I am making a subtle dig at unitarian apologists who argue, for instance, that since Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image") is agreed by biblical scholars <i>not </i>to be a statement spoken by the Father to the Son, it thus cannot be interpreted as such. These apologists are conflating the grammatical-historical sense with the spiritual sense.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> The versification differs in the LXX and MT from the English, so Isaiah 9:5-6 LXX/MT correspond to 9:6-7 English.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 211.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 215.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 216.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> See my article, <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2015/01/when-is-angelos-not-angel-critical.html" target="_blank">When is an angelos not an angel? A critique of Christadelphian lexical semantics</a>.</i></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> "and his name will be called before Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever, 'The messiah in whose days peace will increase upon us'" (trans. Collins, "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 213).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 217.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> "Isaiah 8:23-9:6 and Its Greek Translation," 217.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> So David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, "Luke," in <i>Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament</i>, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson<i> </i>(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 260. Pao and Schnabel also comment on the "parallels" between Isaiah 9:2-7 and Luke 2:8-14, without claiming any direct literary dependence.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> It should be borne in mind that patristic references to this text do not always indicate whether the patristic author understood <i>angelos</i> in the sense of "Angel" or "Messenger." In some of the modern translations we will quote, the translation "angel" or "messenger" is just an educated guess by the modern scholar.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> So Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, <i>Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies </i>(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 44.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Trans. Minns and Parvis, <i>Justin</i>, 177. They note the likelihood of a lacuna here (<i>ibid.</i>, 177 n. 1), since Isaiah 9:5 has nothing to do with the hiddenness of Christ in his childhood, and Justin interprets it with reference to his death.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> c. 160 is the usual date for the <i>Dialogue</i>, but Timothy J. Horner argues that the <i>Dialogue</i> was a redacted version of an earlier "Trypho Text," an account of a real dialogue with Trypho, which he dates to c. 135 A.D. (<i>Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyr's Dialogue Reconsidered </i>[Leuven: Peeters, 2001]).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Michael Slusser (ed.), <i>St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho</i>, trans. Thomas B. Falls, rev. Thomas P. Halton (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 118. All subsequent translations of the <i>Dialogue </i>are from the same.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> "I prove from all the Scriptures that Christ is spoken of as a <i>King</i>, and a <i>Priest</i>, and <i>God</i>, and <i>Lord</i>, and <i>an Angel</i>, and <i>a Man</i>, and <i>a Leader</i>, and <i>a Stone</i>, and <i>a Begotten Son</i>..." (<i>Dial. </i>34.2); cf. <i>Dial. </i>56.4, 10; 59.1; 60.1; 61.1; etc.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> Text in Philippe Bobichon, Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon: Introduction, Édition Critique, Traduction, Notes, 2 vols. (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003), 1:346.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> <i>Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence </i>(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 4.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> Trans. Joseph P. Smith, <i>St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching </i>(Westminster: Newman Press, 1952), 73. Other translations of this work below are from the same source.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> Irenaeus also makes a passing reference to this LXX title in his better-known work, <i>Against Heresies </i>(3.16.3).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> Given the prominence of "God" as a Christological title in Justin's writings, it is difficult to believe that he would not have mentioned the title "Mighty God" in the Hebrew of Isaiah 9:5, had he been aware of it—particularly when trying to win over Trypho the Jew.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> The third, in <i>Against the Jews </i>10.11, is nearly identical to that from <i>Against Marcion</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> Trans. Ernest Evans, <i>Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem </i>(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 229.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> Trans. Ernest Evans, <i>Tertullian's Treatise on the Incarnation </i>(London: SPCK, 1956), 51.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> "'For no one has known the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him.' And to the extent that he is the Word, he is the 'messenger of great counsel' 'upon whose shoulder the authority' has come to rest, for he has become king because he suffered the cross." (<i>Commentary on John</i> 1.278, trans. Ronald E. Heine, <i>Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10 </i>[Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 91).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> "217 The Savior, therefore, in a way much more divine than Paul, has become 'all things to all,' that he might either 'gain' or perfect 'all things.' He has clearly become a man to men, and an angel to angels. 218 No believer will have any doubt that he became a man; and we may be convinced that he became an angel if we observe the appearances and the words of angels when [some angel appears with authority] in certain passages of Scripture when the angels speak. For example, 'An angel of the Lord appeared in the fire of a burning bush. And he said, I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.' But also Isaias says, 'His name shall be called angel of great counsel.'" (<i>Commentary on John</i> 1.217-18, trans. Heine, <i>Origen</i>, 77). Elsewhere, Origen objects the notion that Christ was "some angel," which the pagan apologist Celsus was willing to concede for the sake of argument. Origen responds, "Next, as he supposes that he can say of the Saviour by way of a concession <i>Let us assume that he really was some angel</i>, we say that we do not accept this from Celsus as a concession. But we consider the work of him who visited the whole human race by his word and teaching, according as each one of those who believe him was able to receive him. This was not the work merely of an angel but, as the prophecy about him says, 'of the angel of the great counsel'. For he proclaimed to men the great counsel of the God and Father of the universe concerning them..." (<i>Contra Celsum </i>5.53, trans. Henry Chadwick, <i>Origen: Contra Celsum </i>(London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 305-306.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> Cf. Hippolytus, <i>De benedictionibus Isaaci et Iacobi et Moysis</i> 1-2; <i>In Danielem</i> 2.32.6; <i>Traditio apostolica</i> 4, 8; Gregory Thaumaturgus, <i>In Origenem oratio panegyrica</i> 4.42; Cyprian, <i>Ad Quirinum </i>2.21; Victorinus, <i>Commentarii in Apocalypsim Ioannis </i>10.1; Peter of Alexandria, <i>Epistula canonica</i> 5; Eusebius, <i>Generalis elementaria introductio</i> 1.17, 3.30, 4.7; Eusebius, <i>Demonstratio evangelica</i> 1.1.2, 4.10.17, 5.10.6, 7.1.135-153, 7.2.2-23, 9.8.1, 9.8.16, 10.3; Eusebius, <i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>at 9:6; Lactantius, <i>Diuinae Institutiones</i> 4.11.7, 4.12.10, 5.7.1.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> The work never uses the word "Trinity," so this title has probably been imposed on it retrospectively. It is basically a commentary on the Roman creed, focusing on those parts which were controversial at the time—above all, matters of Christology.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> Trans. Russell J. deSimone, <i>Novatian: The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters</i> (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1974), 68-69, 72. The phrase "Angel of Great Counsel" is quoted again in <i>de Trinitate </i>21.3, 28.8, 31.16-18.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-33"><a href="#ref-footnote-33">33</a> Tertullian and Novatian wrote in Latin, and so presumably followed the Old Latin, which is close to the LXX.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-34"><a href="#ref-footnote-34">34</a> Eusebius of Caesarea, <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i>, trans. Jonathan J. Armstrong, ed. Joel C. Elowsky (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013), 49-50.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-62379567480284755132022-05-09T23:15:00.000+02:002022-05-09T23:15:01.296+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (3): "It was no ambassador or angel but the Lord himself that saved them" (Isaiah 63:9)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div>Continuing our series on Christological texts in Isaiah, we turn to the rich and fascinating text that is Isaiah 63:9. We will first look at the text in its context in the Hebrew Bible and its translation in the Septuagint. We will then look at its reception in the New Testament before surveying its interpretation in the early Church.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Isaiah 63:9 in Context</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>Isaiah 63:1-6 is a "divine warrior scene" in which a figure comes from Edom and "marches toward Zion wearing red garments, which at first glance appear regal (63:1) but actually are covered with the blood of the nations (63:3)."<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> Although the figure is not explicitly identified, the lofty language used of the figure and the connection with the earlier divine warrior scene in Isaiah 59:15b-21 (where the Warrior is explicitly YHWH) leaves no doubt as to his identity.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> The Divine Warrior comes to save his people and to destroy their enemies.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Divine Warrior scene ends at 63:6 and gives way to a "communal lament" that runs from 63:7-64:11. The lament "begins in hymnic style in verse 7 by urging the people to commemorate YHWH's glorious deeds," an appeal followed by "two historical reflections in verses 8-10 and vv. 11-14."<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> 63:7-14 as a whole establishes "the covenantal nature of the human-divine relationship," strains in which are lamented in vv. 15-19a, eliciting a petition for God to visit Israel anew as he had once done at Sinai.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> Despite the shift from divine warrior scene in 63:1-6 to communal lament from 63:7-64:11, there are obvious connections between the two passages. Above all, "theophanic themes" involving YHWH's deliverance and judgment, past and present, are evident throughout.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>Isaiah 63:9 is a verse with significant textual difficulties in the Hebrew text. As Bogdan G. Bucur explains, the textual variations hinge on two short words, לא and ער:</div><div><blockquote>In the former case, the question is whether to choose the <i>ketiv </i>לא ('not') or the <i>qere</i>, the homophone לו ('to him'). As for צר, the question is whether to accept the MT vocalization of צַר ('constraint,' 'distress,' 'affliction') or to vocalize it as צִיר, which would yield 'messenger.'<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>Depending on the textual decision one makes and how one reads the syntax, one arrives at one of two quite different renderings:<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup></div><div></div><blockquote><div>8 [...] and he became their savior. 9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. (RSV)</div><div><br /></div><div>8 [...] and he became their savior 9 in all their affliction. It was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. (NRSV)</div></blockquote><div></div><div>The second of the above readings was followed by the Septuagint translators:</div><div><div><blockquote>8 [...] And he became to them salvation out of all affliction. It was no ambassador or angel but the Lord himself that saved them, because he loved them and spared them; he himself ransomed them and took them up and lifted them up all the days of old.<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>The idea is similar to that in Isaiah 35:4 LXX, the text we looked at in <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/05/the-christological-significance-of.html" target="_blank">the previous article</a>: "God...himself will come and save us." There is a notable difference, in that Isaiah 35:4 is a prophecy of the future whereas Isaiah 63:9 recalls past events—probably, above all, those of the Exodus. However, given the prominence of New Exodus language in Isaiah, the wider idea in this communal lament is that what God had done in the past, he will do in the future: "O that you would tear open the heavens and come down, so that the mountains would quake at your presence" (64:1 NRSV).</div></div><div><br /></div><div>What is particularly significant about the second reading of Isaiah 63:9 above—the one that the Septuagint followed and that was therefore dominant in early Christianity—is that it contrasts God's direct saving activity with the notion of his working through an agent such as a messenger or an angel. Bucur notes that this contrast also features in rabbinic Jewish exegesis of the Exodus story, with several rabbis insisting that it was the Holy One himself and no agent who undertook certain key acts of deliverance.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Isaiah 63 in Revelation 19</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Isaiah 63:9 is never quoted in the New Testament. The Divine Warrior Scene that shortly precedes it, however, is alluded to in Revelation 19. Interestingly, while the Divine Warrior in Isaiah 63:1-6 is undoubtedly God, Revelation 19 applies this imagery to Christ:</div><div><blockquote>11 Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a scepter of iron; he will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:11-16 NRSV)</blockquote></div><div>There is no mistaking that this figure wearing a robe dipped in blood and treading the winepress of the wrath of God is the figure described in Isaiah 63:2-3. And yet Isaiah 63:3-5 contains language similar to 63:9 about God working <i>alone</i> rather than through an agent or messenger: "I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me... I looked, but there was no helper; I was abandoned, and there was no one to sustain me, so my own arm brought me victory". It is difficult to understand how Revelation could identify the Divine Warrior of Isaiah 63:1-6 as someone other than God—unless there is someone other than God who is also fully divine, as the names "the Word of God" and "King of kings and Lord of lords" already suggest.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Isaiah 63:9 in the Early Church</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Irenaeus of Lyons, writing c. 180-185 C.E., comments thus on our passage: </div><div><blockquote>And Isaias says that those who served God are in the end to be saved through His name… And that He was Himself to bring about these blessings in person, Isaias declared in the words: Not an intercessor, nor an angel, but the Lord Himself hath given them life, because He loves them and has pity on them; He Himself redeemed them. (<i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching </i>88).<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>In his better-known work, <i>Against Heresies</i>, Irenaeus offers a similar interpretation: </div><blockquote><div>So again, that He who was to save us would not be purely a man, nor a being without flesh—for angels have no flesh—Isaiah announced by saying: "It is not an elder, nor an angel, but the Lord himself who will save them; because he loves them and spares them, himself will deliver them." (<i>Adv. Haer.</i> 3.20.4)<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup></div></blockquote><div>The anonymous <i>Epistle to Diognetus</i>, usually grouped among the Apostolic Fathers but dated to c. 200 A.D., does not quote Isaiah 63:9 but probably alludes to it in the following words:</div><div><blockquote>But the truly all-powerful God himself, creator of all and invisible, set up and established in their hearts the truth and the holy word from heaven, which cannot be comprehended by humans. To do so, he did not, as one might suppose, send them one of his servants or an angel or a ruler or any of those who administer earthly activities or who are entrusted with heavenly affairs, but he sent the craftsman and maker of all things himself, by whom he created the heavens, by whom he enclosed the sea within its own boundaries, whose mysteries all the elements of creation guard faithfully, from whom the sun was appointed to guard the courses that it runs during the day, whom the moon obeys when he commands it to shine at night, whom the stars obey by following the course of the moon, by whom all things are set in order and arranged and put into subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea and the things in the sea, fire, air, the abyss, creatures in the heights, creatures in the depths, creatures in between—this is the one he sent to them. (<i>Ep. Diognetus </i>7.2)<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>In his work <i>On the Flesh of Christ</i>, Tertullian, writing in the early third century, seeks to refute those who say that Christ was clothed with an angel. At the conclusion of his argument, he writes, "What more do we need, when we hear Isaiah crying out, 'Not an angel nor a delegate, but the Lord himself hath saved them?'" (<i>De Carne Christi </i>14.6)<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>Origen, the great Alexandrian exegete, quotes the passage a few decades later in his commentary on the Song of Songs. He regards the woman's longing for her lover as signifying the Church's longing for Christ himself and no mere minister: </div><div><blockquote>This is the content of the actual story, presented in dramatic form. But let us see if the inner meaning can also be fittingly supplied along these lines. Let it be the Church who longs for union with Christ… [after the Law] But, since the age is almost ended and His own presence
is not granted me, and I see only His ministers ascending and descending upon me, because of this I pour out my petition to Thee, the Father of my Spouse, beseeching Thee to have compassion at last upon my love, and to send Him, that He may now no longer speak to me only but by His servants the angels and the prophets, but may come Himself directly and kiss me with the kisses of His mouth—that is to say, may pour the words of His mouth into mine, that I may hear Him speak Himself, and see Him teaching. The kisses are Christ’s, which He bestowed on His Church when at His coming, being present in the flesh, He in His own person spoke to her the words of faith and love and peace, according to the promise of Isaias who, when sent beforehand to the Bride, had said: <i>Not a messenger, nor an angel, but the Lord Himself shall save us.</i> (Commentary on Song of Songs 1.1)<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup></blockquote><p></p>Highlighting the similarity between Isaiah 35:4 (discussed in the previous article) and 63:9, Cyprian of Carthage—a contemporary of Origen—quotes the two texts in immediate succession in his list of proof texts supporting the proposition "That Christ our God should come as the Enlightener and Saviour of the human race" (<i>Ad Quirinum</i> 2.7).<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><br /><div>Isaiah 63:1-6 is a divine warrior scene that depicts YHWH's theophanic deliverance of Israel and wrathful judgment of her enemies. Following on that, Isaiah 63:7-64:11 is a communal lament that petitions God to make just such a theophanic intervention. It recalls how God has done this in the past, and one possible reconstruction of the text of Isaiah 63:9—which the Septuagint follows—emphasises that it was God himself and no mere agent (messenger or angel) who intervened.</div><div><br /></div><div>Already in the Book of Revelation, the Divine Warrior of Isaiah 63:1-6—who had emphasised that he worked alone, because there was no helper—is interpreted as Jesus, the Word of God. In like manner, the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries consistently interpret the language of 63:9 ("It was no ambassador or angel but the Lord himself that saved them") as a reference to the Incarnation, in which the divine Son of God personally came in human flesh to save humanity from their enemies.</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Matthew J. Lynch, "Zion's Warrior and the Nations: Isaiah 59:15b-63:6 in Isaiah's Zion Traditions," <i>Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 </i>(2008): 245, 256.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> These two divine warrior scenes "form an <i>inclusio </i>around and are textually joined to chaps. 60-62," which speak of Zion's restoration (Lynch, "Zion's Warrior," 245).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Judith Gärtner, "'...Why Do You Let Us Stray from Your Paths...' (Isa 63:17): The Concept of Guilt in the Communal Lament Isa 63:7-64:11," in M. J. Boda, D. K. Falk & R. A. Werline (eds.), <i>Seeking the Favor of God. Volume 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism </i>(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 146.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Richard J. Bautsch, "Lament Regained in Trito-Isaiah's Penitential Prayer," in Boda, Falk & Werline, <i>Seeking the Favor of God</i>, 87.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Lynch, "Zion's Warrior," 259.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Bogdan G. Bucur, "The Lord Himself, One Lord, One Power: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Isaiah 63:9 and Daniel 7:13," in <i>Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism</i>, ed. Andrei A. Orlov (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 241-42. The <i>ketiv </i>refers to the orthographic consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible, and the <i>qere </i>to the suggested vocalisation of the Masoretic Text.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> In fact two further renderings are possible; see Bucur, "The Lord Himself," 242 for the details.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Moisés Silva, "Esaias," in <i>New English Translation of the Septuagint</i>, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 872. The Greek text reads: 8 [...] καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς εἰς σωτηρίαν 9 ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως. οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, ἀλλʼ αὐτὸς κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτούς διὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν αὐτοὺς καὶ φείδεσθαι αὐτῶν· αὐτὸς ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ὕψωσεν αὐτοὺς πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ αἰῶνος. (<i>Septuaginta</i>, ed. Joseph Ziegler [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 14:355.)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> See Bucur, "The Lord Himself," 243-54.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> On the latter title, see my article, <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/09/lord-of-lords-and-king-of-kings-as.html" target="_blank">"Lord of lords" and "King of kings" as Hebraic Superlatives</a></i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Trans. Joseph P. Smith, S.J., <i>St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostlic Preaching </i>(Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1952), 102.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> This is my translation of the French translation by Adélin Rousseau: "De même encore, que Celui qui devait nous sauver ne serait ni purement un homme, ni un être sans chair - car les anges n'ont pas de chair -, Isaïe l'a annoncé en disant: «Ce n'est pas un ancien, ni un ange, mais le Seigneur lui-même qui les sauvera, parce qu'il les aime et qu'il les épargne, lui-même les délivrera.»" (Adelin Rousseau, <i>Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies</i> [Paris: Cerf, 2001]).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Trans. Bart D. Ehrman, <i>The Apostolic Fathers </i>(2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2:145.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> Trans. Ernest Evans, <i>Tertullian's Treatise on the Incarnation </i>(London: SPCK, 1956), 53.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Trans. R. P. Lawson, <i>Origen, The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies </i>(New York: Newman, 1956), 59-60.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Trans. <i>A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church</i> (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1840), 3:37.</li>
</ul>
</div></div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-61563295521417317802022-05-01T21:33:00.011+02:002022-06-20T02:05:20.036+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (2): "God...will repay; he himself will come and save us" (Isaiah 35:4)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Let us continue our series on the Christological significance of Isaianic texts. In the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2022/04/the-christological-significance-of.html" target="_blank">last article</a> we looked at Isaiah 48:16, observing that the speaker of this text is enigmatic, that the text is alluded to in the Gospel of John, and that early Christian exegetes (specifically Origen of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea) understood the speaker to be Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this article, we will look at Isaiah 35:4. Let us first consider the passage in its immediate context:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>1 The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus 2 it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing. The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, the majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They shall see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God. 3 Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. 4 Say to those who are of a fearful heart, “Be strong, do not fear! Here is your God. He will come with vengeance, with terrible recompense. He will come and save you.” 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; 6 then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy. (Isaiah 35:1-6b NRSV)<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left; width: 100%;">The Septuagint version of v. 4 reads, "Give comfort, you who are faint of heart and mind! Be strong; do not fear! Look, our God is repaying judgment; yes, he will repay; he himself will come and save us" (NETS). It is this last clause (<i>autos h</i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ēxei kai s</i></span><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ōsei h</i></span><i>ēmas</i> in Greek) that demands our close attention. The statement places special emphasis on the subject; hence the translation "he <i>himself </i>will come and save us."<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> Moreover, the verb <i>hēkō</i> does not merely mean "come" in a generic sense (like <i>erchomai</i> does) but, when used of persons, specifically means "to be in a place as the result of movement to, <i>have come</i>,<i> be present</i>".<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> Focusing on the result of the movement more than the movement itself, it signals that God will come and <i>be present with</i> his people.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> While the text certainly does not make explicit reference to the Incarnation, this is one means by which God could have come to be present with his people and so heal their infirmities, as Jesus did according to the Gospels.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Given the emphatic use of <i>autos </i>here ("God...will repay; <i>he himself</i> will come and save us"), it is worth noting some similar language in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, a reference to Christ's second coming when he will raise the dead: "For the Lord himself (<i>autos ho kyrios</i>)...will descend from heaven..." "The Lord" here is obviously Christ; but why has Paul added <i>autos</i> for emphasis? It could, in fact, be an allusion to another Isaianic text:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>But now the Lord will stand up to judge, and he will make his people stand to judge them. The Lord himself (<i>autos kyrios</i>) will enter into judgment with the elders of the people and with their rulers. (Isaiah 3:13-14 LXX, NETS)</blockquote><p>It is possible that early Christian readers would have seen in the verb "stand" here an allusion to the resurrection.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> But what is clear is that the text foretells that "the Lord himself" will come and be present for judgment (the verb is again <i>hēkō</i>). "The Lord" in the context of Isaiah 3:13-14 is obviously God, but Paul apparently interprets it to refer to Christ. This provides at least <i>prima facie </i>evidence that Paul might have likewise understood the "God" who would himself come in judgment according to Isaiah 35:4 to be Christ.</p></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Isaiah 35 in the New Testament</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Isaiah 35 is a chapter that lends itself easily to eschatological interpretation. The image of the desert blossoming, associated with the people seeing the glory of God (vv. 1-2) is a picture of restoration (cf. Acts 3:21). The author of Hebrews, in calling his readers to perseverance that they may receive their eschatological reward, alludes to Isaiah 35:3 ("Be strong, you weak hands and feeble knees") in 12:12.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> The list of miracles in Isaiah 35:5-6 has certainly influenced statements about Jesus' healing ministry, especially in Matthew 11:4-5 and 15:30-31.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> The picture in Isaiah 35:10 of pain and sorrow and sighing having fled away forms part of the background to Revelation 21:4, which states that "mourning and crying and pain will be no more".<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> Thus, while the NT never quotes verbatim from Isaiah 35, there is ample evidence that it was understood in the early Church to refer to the blessings of the Messianic age, including those inaugurated at Christ's first coming.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Isaiah 35:4 in the Early Church</b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">At least five ante-Nicene Christian writers interpret Isaiah 35:4 (together with vv. 5-6) as a prophecy about <i>Christ</i>. The first of these is Tertullian (late 2nd or early 3rd century), who writes (within a polemic against the Jews):</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Moreover, [I shall demonstrate] the feats of strength [Christ] was going to perform from the Father: ‘Behold, our God shall restore judgement, God shall come and make us well. Then the weak shall be cared for, the eyes of the blind shall see, the ears of the deaf shall hear, the tongues of the mute shall be loosened and the lame shall leap like the dear’, etc. 9.31. Nor are you denying that Christ has done these things, seeing that it is you who used to say that you were throwing stones at him, not on account of his works but because he was doing them on the sabbath. (<i>Adversus Judaeos</i> 9.30-31)<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Evidently, Tertullian takes the words "God shall come and make us well" as fulfilled in Christ's ministry, but does not explicitly state that "God" in this verse refers to Christ. In view of the reference to feats of strength that he performed "from the Father," it is possible that he meant that God (the Father) came vicariously in Christ, or that Christ (here called "God") came from the Father. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Around 248 A.D., Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote two books of <i>Testimonia</i>, that is, of "topically arranged proof-texts,"<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> to one Quirinus. Having quoted many biblical texts (from both Testaments) to show "That Christ is God" (<i>Ad Quirinum </i>2.6), Cyprian next marshals a series of texts proving "That Christ our God should come as the Enlightener and Saviour of the human race" (<i>Ad Quirinum </i>2.7).<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> The first proof text quoted is Isaiah 35:3-6. This leaves no doubt that Cyprian understood "God" in Isaiah 35:4 to refer to Christ, and thus to be a prophecy of the Incarnation.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">At about the same time (c. 240-250), the Roman presbyter Novatian wrote his work <i>de Trinitate</i>, a polemical work defending the Church's doctrine "against the errors of Docetism, Adoptianism, and Modalism."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> Novatian discusses our passage at some length:</div><div id="demo-1"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(4) The same prophet [Isaiah] says: ‘Be strong, you feeble hands and weak knees; be comforted, you that are faint-hearted, be strong, fear not. Behold, our God will render judgment: He will come and save us; then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shal hear; then shall the lame man leap as the hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be eloquent.’ (5) If the prophet says that these signs—which have already been wrought—will be the future signs of God’s advent, then let the heretics either acknowledge that Christ is the Son of God, at whose coming and by whom these miracles were wrought, or—defeated by the truth of Christ’s divinity and falling into the other heresy—inasmuch as they refuse to confess that Christ is the Son of God and God—let them confess that He is the Father. Since they have been restrained by the words of the prophets, they can no longer deny that Christ is God. (6) What, then, can they reply, when the miracles which were prophesied as taking place at the coming of God, were actually wrought at the advent of Christ? In what way do they think Christ is God? For they can no longer deny that He is God. Do they think He is the Father or the Son? If they accept Him as the Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God? If they accept Him as the Father, why are they not following those who are seen to hold such blasphemies? At any rate, in this debate with them about the truth, it suffices for our present purpose that, no matter how they are refuted, they confess that Christ, whose divinity they wished to deny, is also God. (<i>de Trinitate</i> 12.4-6)<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Novatian, like Cyprian, believes that Isaiah 35:4 proves Christ's deity. If Isaiah refers to the coming of God and then describes healing works that were in fact performed in history by Christ, it follows that Christ is the "God" that Isaiah prophesied would come.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">In the 268/9, a synod in Antioch deposed the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, in part for Christological heresy.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> A letter survives addressed to Paul by six other bishops, of whom Hymenaeus of Jerusalem is named first. This letter is known as the <i>Letter of the Six Bishops</i> or the <i>Letter of Hymenaeus</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> I am not aware of any published English translation; what follows is my translation of the Greek.<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> The bishops write,</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>But whomever would resist the Son of God, believing and confessing him not to be God before the foundation of the world, thinking two gods to be announced if the Son of God is declared God, we regard this as alien to the ecclesiastical rule, and all the catholic churches agree with us. For about him it is written…</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The bishops proceed to quote a series of biblical proof texts that, in their view, establish that the Son of God is God. The first is Psalm 44(45):6-7, and the second is our text, Isaiah 35:4-6.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea discusses our text in his work <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, written c. 314-324.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup> After quoting from Isaiah 35 at length, he writes:</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Now we have this prophecy fulfilled in the Gospels, partly, when they brought to our Lord and Saviour a paralytic lying on a bed, whom He made whole with a word; and partly, when many that were blind and possessed with daemons, yea, labouring under various diseases and weaknesses, were released from their sufferings by His saving power. Nor should we forget how even now throughout the whole world multitudes bound by all forms of evil, full of ignorance of Almighty God in their souls, are healed and cured miraculously and beyond all argument by the medicine of His teaching. Except that now we call Him God as we should, as One Who can work thus, as I have already shown in the evidence of His Divinity... For it is God and the Word of God, not one like Moses or the prophets, that was not only the Worker of the Miracles, but is also the Cause of your own strength. And the strongest confirmation of the Divine Power of the Saviour here foretold, by which He really used to cure the lame, the blind, the lepers and the palsied with a word according to that which is written concerning Him, is the power even now energizing through the whole world from His Godhead... And He is our God, since He is the Word of God, [as] it says, 'Gives judgment and will give, He will come and save us.'... He repays justly to the Jewish people the fit penalty for their presumptuous treatment of Him and His prophets, and ever saves in justice as well those who come to Him... And the judgment on them that shall be saved by Him is foretold next in the words, 'He will come and save us; then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf hear,' and that which follows." (<i>Proof of the Gospel</i> 9.13)<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like Cyprian and Novatian before him, Eusebius saw in this text proof that Christ is God.</div></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Isaiah 35:4 LXX declares that God himself will come and be present and save us. We have observed that Church Fathers both in the West (Cyprian, Novatian, possibly Tertullian) and in the East (Hymenaeus and other bishops, Eusebius) understood Isaiah this text to be a prophecy of the Incarnation, in which God truly did come and make himself physically present to us in the person of his Son, the Word Incarnate. This interpretation is supported by NT allusions to Isaiah 35—which show that the text was understood Messianically—and by the language used in the Septuagint Greek, especially when compared with Paul's language in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.</div><div id="demo-1"><br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> All biblical quotations herein, except those from the Septuagint, are taken from the NRSV. Quotations from the Septuagint are taken from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), <i>A New English Translation of the Septuagint</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) (hereafter NETS).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> <i>autos</i> is the third-person pronoun, i.e. "he." However, an ancient Greek sentence does not require a subject to be supplied explicitly, since it is implicit in the verb; hence <i>hēxei kai sōsei hēmas</i> already means "he will come and save us." The inclusion of <i>autos </i>thus places emphasis on the subject. Secondly, word order in ancient Greek is highly flexible; the sentence could have been worded <i>hēxei autos kai <i>hēmas </i>sōsei </i>and would still mean, "he will come and save us." Thus, that <i>autos</i> is the first word places further emphasis on the subject.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> BDAG 435.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Of course, the Masoretic text is no less impressive in declaring, "Here is your God" (cf. Isa. 40:9-10).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> The verb <i><i>histēmi</i> </i>("stand") is the root of the verb <i><i>anistēm</i>i </i>(literally, "stand again") that is a technical term for "raise (from the dead)" in the NT.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> "Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees".</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Matthew 11:4 "refers again to specific healing miracles as having messianic significance, as already in the LXX of Isa. 29:18-19; 35:5-6; and 61:1" (Craig L. Blomberg, "Matthew," in <i>Commentary on the Old Testament Use of the New Testament</i>, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 38). "The categories of sick people and the healings performed in Matt. 15:30-31 again recall the prophecies of the miracles that would demonstrate the arrival of the messianic age (esp. Isa. 35:5-6)" (<i>ibid.</i>, 54).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, "Revelation," in <i>Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament</i>, 1151.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Trans. Geoffrey D. Dunn, <i>Tertullian</i> (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 90.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Martin C. Albl, <i>"And Scripture Cannot Be Broken": The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections</i> (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 132.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Trans. <i>A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church </i>(Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1840), 3:37.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> Russell J. deSimone (trans.), <i>Novatian: The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters </i>(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1974), 14-15.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Trans. deSimone, <i>Novatian</i>, 50-51.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> "Paul rejects the idea that the Logos should be composed (σύνθετος) with a human body, for this would be equivalent to a kind of mingling which is contrary to his dignity or rank as the Son of God… Malchion insists that Jesus Christ is one, composed out of two simple elements, the God-Logos and the human body, which is from the seed of David. The charge laid on Paul is that his rejection of such a model of ‘composition’ implies a denial of the substantial union of the Son of God with the human body. It is insinuated that he conceives of the union in Christ as a participation, presumably of the man Jesus, in the divine Wisdom, who is said to dwell in the former. According to Malchion, Paul’s doctrine of the inhabitation of divine Wisdom is motivated by the intention to protect the Son of God from the humiliating consequences of his kenosis, i.e. from suffering the cost or loss (<i>dispendium</i>) of his being united with a human body." (U. M. Lang, "The Christological Controversy at the Synod of Antioch in 268/9," <i>Journal of Theological Studies 51</i> [2000]: 66-67.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Lang states that de Riedmatten has argued convincingly in favour of its authenticity ("Christological Controversy," 71).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Greek text in Martin Josephus Routh, <i><a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=mqNQAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:RhDkPCm36l8C&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">Reliquiae Sacrae</a></i>, 5 vols. (Oxford: Typographeo academico, 1846-48), 3:291.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> According to Aaron P. Johnson, the <i>Proof of the Gospel</i> was written during the period 314-324 ("Narrating the Council: Eusebius on Nicaea," in The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea, ed. Young Kim [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021], 203). W. J. Ferrar dates the <i>Proof of the Gospel to 314-318</i>, reasoning that some of theological language is too "unguarded" to have been written after the Arian controversy erupted c. 319 (<i>The Proof of the Gospel, Being the </i>Demonstratio Evangelica<i> of Eusebius of Caesarea</i> [2 vols.; London: SPCK, 1920], 1:xiii).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Trans. Ferrar, <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, 2:178-79. The word "as" has been inserted in square brackets by me, since Ferrar's translation does not make sense without it. An alternative emendation would be, "And He is our God. Since He is the Word of God, it says, 'Gives judgment...'"</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com1Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-47770280554264736762022-04-17T13:57:00.010+02:002022-06-20T02:10:54.415+02:00Reading Isaiah like an Early Christian (1): "The Lord has sent me and his Spirit" (Isaiah 48:16)<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><b><a href="#sec_1" name="ref_1">Introduction</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#sec_2" name="ref_2">Isaiah 48:16 in Context</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#sec_3" name="ref_3">Echoes of Isaiah 48:16 in the Gospel of John</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#sec_4" name="ref_4">Early Christian Interpretation of Isaiah 48:16</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#sec_5" name="ref_5">Conclusion</a></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><a href="#ref_1" name="sec_1">Introduction</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>This is the first part of a series of posts in which I hope to explore the Christological significance of certain passages in Isaiah.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> Early Christians drew extensively on the Jewish Scriptures to form their understanding of the person and mission of Jesus Christ, and few books influenced them more in this respect than Isaiah. Some of this influence is attested through direct quotations of Isaiah in the New Testament. For example, all four Gospels quote from Isaiah 40:3 to explicate John the Baptist's role in the divine purpose.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> However, the New Testament (NT) does not contain a verse-by-verse commentary on the Old Testament (OT); indeed, the NT only provides us with an Christological interpretation for a relatively small number of OT texts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Should we conclude that only those OT texts that are explicitly quoted in the NT are legitimate Messianic texts? Or when we read that Jesus "interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures" (Luke 24:27) and that Apollos "powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus" (Acts 18:28), should we suppose that these Scriptures are strictly those cited elsewhere in the NT? Of course not. The OT, when read with the light of Christ, is saturated with Christological significance, and explicit NT quotations only scratch the surface of this.</div><div><br /></div><div>In this article, we will examine Isaiah 48:16, an OT text that is never quoted in the NT but that (it will be argued) has enormous Christological significance. But before we turn to this passage, we need to ask a question: how can we know that an OT text is Messianic if the NT doesn't say it is? Are we not then merely imposing our own subjective opinions onto the text? Well, not quite. There are at least three lines of evidence by which such a claim can be evaluated <i>objectively</i>. </div><div><br /></div><div>These are: (i) mysterious or enigmatic features in the text; (ii) literary or conceptual echoes of the text in the NT; (iii) the witness of early Christian writers. First, the text may contain enigmas that point the reader toward some deeper significance. An NT example of this phenomenon can be seen in Acts 8:26ff. The Ethiopian eunuch is puzzled about the identity of the Servant figure as he reads Isaiah 53. The mysterious character of the text becomes an opening for the Spirit, speaking through Philip, to reveal the text's Christological significance. Second, even if a text is not explicitly quoted in the NT, there may be allusions or faint echoes that suggest that it had influenced the NT writer's ideas about Christ. Third, early post-apostolic Christian literature testify to how the early Church interpreted OT texts, and in some instances these writers are likely reporting traditional interpretations handed down to them from previous generations of believers. Thus, the temporal and linguistic proximity of these writers to the NT make their witness far more weighty than your or my private opinion.</div><div><br /></div><div>One last thing needs to be said before we turn to Isaiah 48:16. To assert that a particular OT passage has a Messianic application is not to assert that this is its only meaning. <i>Au contraire</i>, there are arguably very few texts in the Jewish Scriptures that refer <i>at the grammatical-historical level of meaning </i>to the eschatological Messiah—and arguably <i>none </i>that refer to Jesus of Nazareth!<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> Rather, Christological meaning, if present, operates as <i>sensus plenior</i>—a subtler spiritual, moral, or eschatological sense that may have been lost on the human author but was intended by the Divine Author. This distinction between grammatical-historical and theological interpretation must be borne in mind or misunderstandings are inevitable.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> One cannot accept the NT as Sacred Scripture and yet insist that the grammatical-historical sense is the only valid meaning of the text, because this is not how the NT writers interpret the OT.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#ref_2" name="sec_2">Isaiah 48:16 in Context</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Isaiah 48:16 occurs in the middle of an oracle in which Yahweh addresses Israel concerning the people's disobedience and his divine mercy and redemptive purpose. It is clear that Yahweh is speaking in the first person:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>12 Listen to me, O Jacob, </div><div> and Israel, whom I called: <br /> I am He; I am the first, <br /> and I am the last. </div><div>13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, <br /> and my right hand spread out the heavens; </div><div> when I summon them, </div><div> they stand at attention.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div></div></blockquote><div>The first-person address continues in v. 15: "I, even I, have spoken and called him..." and again v. 17 opens with "Thus says Yahweh..." But in v. 16 we have this:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>Draw near to me, hear this! <br />From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, <br />from the time it came to be I have been there. <br />And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me and his spirit.</div><div></div></blockquote><div>Considering only the first three lines, there is nothing to suggest that the speaker is other than Yahweh, who has been speaking throughout this oracle. Yahweh has been making calls to "Hear" and "See" throughout the oracle (vv. 1, 6, 12, 14). Yahweh emphasises throughout this and other oracles in Isaiah 40-55 that he has existed and declared things from the beginning (vv. 3, 5, 12-14),<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> and has not spoken in secret (45:19). Yet the speaker of the last line is obviously distinct from Yahweh, as he says he has been sent by Yahweh.</div><div><br /></div><div>Who then is the speaker? Even according to the grammatical-historical sense, this question has proven puzzling for biblical scholars; there is no consensus as to its answer. John N. Oswalt summarises the problem and the scholarly positions:</div><div><div><blockquote>The first three cola of the verse are clear enough, as has just been explained; but the last two constitute a problem that, in turn, raises problems about the first three. The difficulty is in identifying the speaker. It clearly cannot be God, yet there is no indication of a change. Does this mean that the speaker in the first part of the verse is, despite initial impressions, not God? Four basic positions have been taken. (1) The subject of the entire verse is the prophet... (2) the subject of the first three cola is God, and the subject of the last bicolon is the prophet... (3) the subject of the last bicolon is the Messiah... (4) the last bicolon is disarranged from some other place, either accidentally or on purpose...<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>According to Claus Westermann, "Editors are unanimous" that the words of v. 16c ("But now, the Lord Yahweh has sent me and his spirit") "cannot possibly be explained in their present context"; he concludes that this fragment is a late addition to the text.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>The Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of Isaiah, which dates to perhaps the second century B.C.,<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> follows the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) closely.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> A translation of the Septuagint Greek is:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Draw near to me, and hear these things! </div><div>From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; </div><div>when it happened I was there, </div><div>and now the Lord has sent me and his spirit.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup></div></blockquote><div></div><div>The Septuagint text proves that, if the last line of Isaiah 48:16 MT is due to a textual disturbance, this disturbance was established by the second century B.C. and was thus almost certainly part of the Scriptures as known to Jesus and the earliest Christians. If it is a corruption, it is a <i>canonical </i>corruption and thus its significance for Christian theology cannot be dismissed.</div><div><br /></div></div><div>One question that arises from the last line of Isaiah 48:16 is whether the Spirit is the subject or object: is it "the Lord and his Spirit sent me" or "the Lord sent me and his Spirit"? It happens that the syntax is ambiguous in both the Hebrew and the Greek, but as Oswalt notes, "While the former is grammatically possible, it is unlikely, both syntactically and theologically. See 11:2; 32:15; 44:3; 59:21; 61:1, where in all cases the Spirit is the one sent."<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, to summarise, both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Isaiah 48:16, as they were known at the time of Jesus, contain an enigmatic line in the midst of speech by God where an unidentified speaker said that he and the Spirit have been sent by the Lord.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#ref_3" name="sec_3">Echoes of Isaiah 48:16 in the Gospel of John</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div>We have already mentioned that Isaiah 48:16 is never quoted directly in the NT. However, in this section I will argue that echoes of Isaiah 48:16 can be heard in the Gospel of John, and that these echoes indicate that this Evangelist interpreted the unidentified speaker—not only of the last line but of the entire verse—to be the preexistent Logos, the divine Son.</div><div><br /></div><div>We will observe that there are echoes in John of all four lines of Isaiah 48:16.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Draw near to me and hear these things.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Just as the speaker of Isaiah 48:16 calls on Israel to "Draw near to me" (<i>pros me</i> in LXX), so Jesus in John calls on people to "come to me" (<i>pros me</i>, John 5:40; 6:35, 37, 44, 45, 65; 7:37). Likewise, just as the speaker of Isaiah 48:16 calls on Israel to "Hear this,"<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> so in John it is by "hearing" Jesus that people may have eternal life (John 5:24, 25; 10:3, 16, 27; 18:37). Now someone may object that there is no striking parallel here since coming near to and hearing are generic, commonplace ideas. But let us go on.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>From the beginning I have not spoken in secret.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The speaker of Isaiah 48:16 declares that he has spoken from the beginning and not in secret (<i>ouk ap' arch</i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēs en kryph</i></i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ē elal</i></i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēsa</i></i>). At his trial, according to John, Jesus tells the high priest that "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret (<i>kai en krypt</i><i style="text-align: left;">ō elal</i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēsa ouden</i></i>)" (John 18:20). Moreover, Jesus in John is one who has spoken from the beginning: he is the Word who was in the beginning (John 1:1), and when asked, "Who are you?" he gives the enigmatic reply, "What I have told you from the beginning" (John 8:25).<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> Jesus also tells his disciples that he did not tell them something from the beginning (John 16:4), which implies that he did tell them other things.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>When it happened I was there.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The speaker of Isaiah 48:16 declares, "At the time when it happened (or, <i>came into existence</i>), there I was."<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> This statement very closely parallels the language about the Logos in John 1:1-3, though it is only apparent from the Greek. In Isaiah 48:16 LXX, the line is <i>h</i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēnika egeneto, ekei </i></i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēm</i></i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēn</i></i>. The verb <i>egeneto</i> is an aorist of <i>ginomai</i>, which has a broad range of meaning including "come into existence" and "happen."<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup> Notably, <i>egeneto</i> is used frequently in Genesis 1 LXX to describe the happenings of the creation story.</div><div><br /></div><div>The verb <i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēm</i></i><i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēn</i></i>, meanwhile, is an imperfect of <i>eimi</i>, meaning "be." Now here is the fascinating bit: just as in Isaiah 48:16 the aorist <i>egeneto</i> is juxtaposed with an imperfect of <i>eimi</i>, so also in John 1:1-3. Here we read that the Word "was" (<i style="text-align: left;"><i>ēn</i></i>, third-person imperfect of <i>eimi</i>) in the beginning with God and that all things "came to be" (<i>egeneto</i>) through him. The shift in verb and tense implies a contrast: while everything else <i>came into existence</i> or <i>happened</i>, the Word simply <i>was</i>. The same contrast is found in Isaiah 48:16: when it <i>came into existence </i>or <i>happened</i>, there I <i>was</i>. The imperfect probably has a durative sense in both cases: things happened, but the Logos/I was there throughout.<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div>There are other Johannine texts similar to this line from Isaiah 48:16 in John 1:15, 30,<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup> John 8:58,<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> and John 17:5,<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> all of which contrast Jesus' primeval and continuous existence with the coming into being of some finite reality.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The theme of Jesus as the one sent by the Father is mentioned many times in the Gospel of John, and significantly, Jesus draws a parallel between the Father's sending of him and the sending of the Holy Spirit:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>...the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me... the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. (John 14:24, 26) </div><div><br /></div><div>But now I am going to him who sent me... Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:5, 7)</div><div></div></blockquote><div>Isaiah 48:16 is, in fact, the only text in the entire OT that speaks of God sending two figures, one of whom is his Spirit. The order is also striking. In other texts, God sends his Spirit upon people, who then prophesy;<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup> but here the speaker is sent <i>before </i>the Spirit, just as the Son is in John.</div><div><br /></div><div>To summarise, then, all four lines of Isaiah 48:16 are closely paralleled in the Fourth Gospel's depiction of Jesus. He is the one who calls people to come to him and hear him. He is the one who has not spoken in secret from the beginning. He is the one who "was" there when things "came to be." He is the one who is sent before God's Spirit. It is not a stretch to say that Isaiah 48:16 functions as a program statement for John's Christology, and has influenced John's view that Christ is both God and distinct from God (John 1:1, 18).</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#ref_4" name="sec_4">Early Christian Interpretation of Isaiah 48:16</a></b></div></div>
<div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The earliest extant quotations from Isaiah 48:16 in Christian literature are found in the writings of Origen. In his work <i>Contra Celsum</i>, the great Alexandrian exegete writes:</div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Since, however, it is a Jew who raises difficulties in the story of the Holy Spirit's descent in the form of a dove to Jesus, I would say to him: My good man, who is the speaker in Isaiah that says 'And now the Lord sent me and his spirit'? In this text although it is doubtful whether it means that the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus or that the Father sent Christ and the Holy Spirit, it is the second interpretation which is right. After the Saviour had been sent, then the Holy Spirit was sent, in order that the prophet's saying might be fulfilled (1.46).<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> </div><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">In a briefer comment in his <i>Commentary on Matthew </i>(13.32), Origen follows the same interpretation (the Father sent the Son and the Spirit). In his <i>Commentary on John</i>, however, he takes the opposite view on the "doubtful" issue mentioned above:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">How is the Spirit honored, as it were, above the Christ in some Scriptures? In Isaias, Christ admits that he has not been sent by the Father alone, but also by the Holy Spirit (for he says, 'And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit')... And if our Lord says, according to Isaias, that he has been sent by the Father and the Spirit, it is possible even there to allege of the Spirit which sent the Christ, that he does not excel him in nature, but that the Savior was made less than him because of the plan of the incarnation of the Son of God which was taking place. (2.79, 81)<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For Origen, therefore, it is clear that the speaker of Isaiah 48:16 is Christ. A few decades later, the same interpretation is attested in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, who comments on the passage both in his <i>Eclogae Propheticae </i>("Prophetic Extracts") and in his <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, both of which are ante-Nicene works.<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> Some of Eusebius' statements sound very Arian, and he would in fact defend Arius during the Arian controversy but ultimately accepted the creedal formula and anathemas of the Council of Nicaea.<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">No English-language translation of the <i>Eclogae Propheticae </i>has yet been published, but—with some assistance from Dr. Logan Williams, for which I am most grateful—I have attempted a translation of the relevant passage below:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">‘Draw near to me, and hear these things: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; when it came to be, I was there. And now the Lord, the Lord has sent me and his spirit.’<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup> Seeing as the person who is speaking these things is one, now who else might be the Lord ‘who created heaven and established it, and made the earth firm,’<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup> who says, ‘I am the first, and I am forever,’<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup> and sets things in order, according to all those having interpreted the divine Scripture, ‘and now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit,’ or [might it be] the sacred Word of God, the first God named after the uncreated beginning of all created things, about whom also it is written elsewhere, ‘he sent his word and healed them,’<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup> for he is the one ‘through whom all things came into being,’<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup> even ‘things in heaven and things on earth, whether visible or invisible,’<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup> whom also the Lord God the Father sent—and with him also the Holy Spirit—so that he will steward the salvation of men? </blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">But it may be that what is stated is adapted toward the Jews, teaching that the other is the Lord who crafted all things with the God of all, by whom he confesses to having been sent, saying, ‘And now the Lord has sent me,’ and it may be he by whom the Father commanded nature, [saying] ‘Let there be light,’<sup id="ref-footnote-33"><a href="#footnote-33" rel="footnote">33</a></sup> at the creation of the world, and ‘Let there be some things and other things,’ and, ‘Let us make man according to our image,’<sup id="ref-footnote-34"><a href="#footnote-34" rel="footnote">34</a></sup> for this also in Psalms is inscribed, ‘He spoke and they came into being, he commanded and they were created.’<sup id="ref-footnote-35"><a href="#footnote-35" rel="footnote">35</a></sup> For it is evident that the one commanding and saying something commands and orders another besides himself. Indeed really, to examine each word of the passage does not belong to the present undertaking. (<i>Eclogae Propheticae </i>4.23)<sup id="ref-footnote-36"><a href="#footnote-36" rel="footnote">36</a></sup></blockquote></div><blockquote><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Eusebius later offers a similar interpretation in his <i>Proof of the Gospel,</i><sup id="ref-footnote-37"><a href="#footnote-37" rel="footnote">37</a> </sup>and still later in his <i>Commentary on Isaiah </i>(which post-dates the Council of Nicaea).<sup id="ref-footnote-38"><a href="#footnote-38" rel="footnote">38</a></sup><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, both extant Christian interpretations of Isaiah 48:16 from the ante-Nicene period hold that the speaker of this scriptural text is Christ, the pre-existent Word. One might object that two witnesses does not constitute overwhelming evidence. Perhaps not, but on the other hand there is <i>zero</i> evidence for any non-Christological interpretation of this text in the early Church.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#ref_5" name="sec_5">Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have seen that there are three lines of evidence supporting a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 48:16: (i) the enigmatic character of this text in the original Hebrew; (ii) the echoes of this text in the Gospel of John; and (iii) the testimony of two early Church Fathers, namely Origen of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea. If we accept that Christ is the speaker in the <i>sensus plenior </i>of this passage, what are the Christological implications? Firstly, the text implies Christ's pre-existence, not only because he is able to speak through the words of an OT prophet who prophesied long before his birth, but also because he expressly declares that he has been speaking from the beginning—meaning, in the Isaianic context, the beginning of creation. Secondly, the text implies Christ's divinity, because—apart from the last line about being sent—the speaker of this text claims prerogatives that deutero-Isaiah elsewhere says are exclusively God's. Thirdly, Christ does not make himself God in a Sabellian sense (as though he is the Father himself), but distinguishes himself from God and his Spirit. Just as the Gospel of John says, he is God but also sent by God. In fact, what we have here is an explicit mention of all three Trinitarian persons together, in the Old Testament!</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> See my previous <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns.html" target="_blank">article on Isaiah in John</a> for some background on the Book of Isaiah and "deutero-Isaiah" in particular.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> By grammatical-historical meaning, I mean the sense that the human author of the text intended to convey to his contemporary readers.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> See the Introduction to my <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2017/11/early-christian-interpretation-of-us-of.html" target="_blank">article on Genesis 1:26</a> for a case in point.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> For two obvious examples, see Matthew's interpretation of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 and Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Bible quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated, with the exception that "LORD" is substituted with Yahweh for linguistic clarity.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Cf. similar statements in Isaiah 40:21, 41:4, 41:26-27, 43:10-13, 45:18-19, 45:21, 46:9-10.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> <i>The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66 </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 278. Oswalt's own view is that the oddity results from "the close identity between God and the prophet"; the prophet switches temporarily from speaking Yahweh's words to speaking in his own person.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> <i>Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary</i> (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1969), 202-203.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Rodrigo F. De Sousa observes that the translator understands "Tarshish" in Isaiah 23 to refer to Carthage. This may indicate that the destruction of Carthage by the Romans in 146 B.C. was regarded as a fulfilment of this prophecy, in which case the translation must be no earlier than 146 ("Isaiah," in <i>The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint</i>, ed. Alison Salvesen and Michael Timothy Law [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021], 249).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> One difference is that, while אדני and יהוה are each usually rendered by <i>kyrios </i>in the Septuagint, אדני יהוה is here translated with a single <i>kyrios</i> rather than κύριος κύριος. Interestingly, the Greek text known to Eusebius of Caesarea (discussed below) <i>does </i>have a double <i>kyrios</i>, and Eusebius sees great theological significance in this, as highlighting the superiority of the Father's Lordship to the Word's: "And yet though the Word of God is Himself proclaimed divine by the word ‘Lord,’ He still calls One Higher and Greater His Father and Lord, using with beautiful reverence the word Lord twice in speaking of Him, so as to differentiate His title. For He says here, ‘The Lord, the Lord has sent me,’ as if the Almighty God were in a special sense first and true Lord both of His Only-begotten Word and of all begotten things after Him, in relation to which the Word of God has received dominion and power from the Father, as His true and Only-begotten Son, and therefore Himself holds the title of Lord in a secondary sense" (<i>Proof of the Gospel </i>5.6, trans. W. J. Ferrar, <i>The Proof of the Gospel, Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea </i>[2 vols.; London: SPCK, 1920], 1:251).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> Moisés Silva, "Esaias," in <i>New English Translation of the Septuagint</i>, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright<i> </i>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 861-62. The Greek text is as follows: προσαγάγετε πρός με καὶ ἀκούσατε ταῦτα· οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἐν κρυφῇ ἐλάλησα· ἡνίκα ἐγένετο, ἐκεῖ ἤμην, καὶ νῦν κύριος ἀπέσταλκέ με καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ. (<i>Septuaginta</i>, ed. Joseph Ziegler [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], vol. 14.)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> <i>Book of Isaiah</i>, 274 n. 61.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> In the MT the verb is שמע, used famously in Deuteronomy 6:4, the <i>Shema</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> This translation occurs in a footnote in the NRSV; the main translation is, "Why do I speak to you at all?" The Greek of Jesus' reply, <i>t</i><i><i>ēn arch</i></i><i><i>ēn ho ti kai lal</i></i><i>ō humin</i>, is notoriously difficult; see my comments <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns_23.html#osec4" target="_blank">here</a>, where I argued that "What I told you at the beginning" is a plausible translation.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> The adverb <i>h<i>ēnika</i></i> has the sense "at the time when" (BDAG 439).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> Here, it translates a form of היה, the Hebrew verb meaning "be" (but which, like <i>ginomai</i>, can also mean "happen"). Incidentally, the divine name Yahweh is etymologically related to the verb היה, as is evident from Exodus 3:14.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> The Greek imperfect conveys the incompleteness of the action, and often indicates duration over time. For instance, in Job 29:5 LXX, Job reminisces about former days "when I was (<i><i>ēm</i></i><i><i>ēn</i></i>) very much a person of substance and my children were around me" (NETS).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Here, John the Baptist—who is first introduced in the Gospel with the verb <i>egeneto</i> in 1:6 (literally, "there <i>came into existence </i>a man")—says that the one coming after him has surpassed him, because "he was (<i><i>ēn</i></i>, imperfect) before me."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> Here, Jesus declares, "Before Abraham was (<i>genesthai</i>, aorist infinitive), I am (<i>eimi</i>, present tense)." I have commented in more detail on this text <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/04/believe-that-i-am-encountering-johns_27.html#osec4_3" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> Here, Jesus petitions the Father to glorify him "with the glory that I had (<i>eichon</i>, imperfect) in your presence before the world existed (<i>einai</i>, present infinitive)."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> See, e.g., Num. 11:29; 3 Kgdms 10:6; 2 Chr. 20:14-15; Isa. 59:21.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> Trans. Henry Chadwick, <i>Contra Celsum: Translated with an Introduction and Notes </i>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 42.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> Trans. Ronald E. Heine, <i>Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10 </i>(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 114-15.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> According to Aaron P. Johnson, the former work (which is the surviving part of Eusebius' <i>General Elementary Introduction</i>) was written before Eusebius became Bishop of Caesarea in 313, while the <i>Proof of the Gospel </i>was written during the period 314-324 ("Narrating the Council: Eusebius on Nicaea," in <i>The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea</i>, ed. Young Kim [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021], 203). W. J. Ferrar dates the <i>Proof of the Gospel </i>to 314-318, reasoning that some of theological language is too "unguarded" to have been written after the Arian controversy erupted c. 319 (<i style="text-align: justify;">The Proof of the Gospel</i><span style="text-align: justify;">, 1:xiii</span>).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> Eusebius has sometimes been accused of selling out on his theological convictions at the Council of Nicaea, but Johnson ("Narrating the Council") argues that the Council's language was in fact compatible with Eusebius' theology.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> Isaiah 48:16. Eusebius actually quotes Isaiah 48:12-16 but for sake of brevity my translation begins from v. 16.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> Isaiah 42:5.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> Isaiah 48:12.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> Psalm 106:20 LXX.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> Cf. John 1:3, 10.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> Colossians 1:16.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-33"><a href="#ref-footnote-33">33</a> Genesis 1:3.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-34"><a href="#ref-footnote-34">34</a> Genesis 1:26.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-35"><a href="#ref-footnote-35">35</a> Psalm 32:9; 148:5 LXX.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-36"><a href="#ref-footnote-36">36</a> Greek text in Thomas Gaisford, <i><a href="https://ia800207.us.archive.org/14/items/eusebiuseclogaepropheticae/gaisford_eclogae_propheticae.pdf" target="_blank">Eusebii Pamphili, Episcopi Caesariensis: Eclogae Propheticae</a> </i>[Oxonii: E Typographeo Academico, 1842], 205-206.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-37"><a href="#ref-footnote-37">37</a> "See now how He that says, ‘I am the first, and I am the last. He that established the earth and the heaven,’ clearly confesses that He was sent by ‘the Lord, the Lord,’ calling the Father Lord twice, and you will have undeniable evidence of what we seek. And He says that He is first among beings begotten in all reverence since He allots Being, original, unbegotten, and beyond the first, to the Father. For the customary meaning of first in the sense of ‘first of a greater number,’ superior in honour and order, would not be applicable to the Father. For the Almighty God of course is not the first of created things, since the idea of Him does not admit of a beginning. He must be beyond and above the first, as Himself generating and establishing the First, and the Divine Word alone is to be called the First of all begotten things. So if we ask with reference to the words, ‘He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were created,’ to which of the begotten beings He gave the command to create, we see now clearly that it was given to Him, Who said, ‘My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand has made the heaven strong’: Who also confesses that He was sent by One greater than Himself, when He says: ‘Now the Lord, the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit.’ And it must be the Word of God Who said also, ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made firm,’ if we compare the Psalm. And yet though the Word of God is Himself proclaimed divine by the word ‘Lord,’ He still calls One Higher and Greater His Father and Lord, using with beautiful reverence the word Lord twice in speaking of Him, so as to differentiate His title. For He says here, ‘The Lord, the Lord has sent me,’ as if the Almighty God were in a special sense first and true Lord both of His Only-begotten Word and of all begotten things after Him, in relation to which the Word of God has received dominion and power from the Father, as His true and Only-begotten Son, and therefore Himself holds the title of Lord in a secondary sense" (<i>Proof of the Gospel</i> 5.6.1-7, trans. Ferrar, <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, 1:250-51); "You have here the Lord sent and the Lord sending, that is to say the Father and God of the Universe, entitled Lord twice as was usual" (<i>Proof of the Gospel </i>6.22, trans. Ferrar, <i>Proof of the Gospel</i>, 2:43-44).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-38"><a href="#ref-footnote-38">38</a> Eusebius indicates that it is "the Word" who is speaking in this passage, and comments, "For when the Father planned these things, <i>I was</i> with him, <i>and now the Lord</i> himself, who is God over all, <i>sent me his Spirit</i> of holiness in order that I might accomplish once and for all the things that he has ordained." (Eusebius, <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i> 305-306, trans. Jonathan J. Armstrong, <i>Eusebius of Caesarea: Commentary on Isaiah</i> [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2013], 239).</li></ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-72134595186212570662022-01-13T14:05:00.024+02:002022-02-13T17:34:16.702+02:00Biblical Unitarian Pneumatologies and the Danger of Bitheism<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. Tuggy's Argument against the Trinity</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b style="text-align: left;"><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. Turning Tuggy's Argument against Unitarianism</a></b><br style="text-align: left;" /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. Biblical Unitarian Pneumatologies</a></b></div><div><b> <a href="#osec4_1" name="otit4_1">4.1. The Holy Spirit is a divine power or energy</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> </b><b><a href="#osec4_2" name="otit4_2">4.2. The Holy Spirit is a property or aspect of God</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> </b><b><a href="#osec4_3" name="otit4_3">4.3. The Holy Spirit is a circumlocution for God the Father</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <b><a href="#osec4_4" name="otit4_4">4.4. The Holy Spirit is a sub-divine, created thing</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <b><a href="#osec4_5" name="otit4_5">4.5. Summary</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#osec5" name="otit5">5. A Biblical Critique of the Circumlocution and Creature Pneumatologies</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b> <a href="#osec5_1" name="otit5_1">5.1. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><b> <a href="#osec5_2" name="otit5_2">5.2. The Holy Spirit is divine</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec6" name="otit6">6. Conclusion</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Is biblical unitarianism bitheistic (believing in two gods)? Such a question, posed by a Trinitarian, may strike unitarians as audacious and absurd. "We accuse <i>you</i> of denying monotheism. How dare you accuse <i>us</i> of that." In this article, however, I am going to make an argument that the answer to this question is, "Yes." The argument is intended to be slightly tongue-in-cheek; its main purpose is to show that a particular unitarian logical argument against Trinitarianism is self-defeating. However, I also hope to persuade unitarians to think more carefully about their <i>pneumatology—</i>their doctrine of the Holy Spirit. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I will not be arguing—though one could—that by worshipping and praying to a mere man (on which unitarians have <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/09/unitarians-and-offering-of-prayer-to.html" target="_blank">historically disagreed</a> amongst themselves) and ascribing the divine Name to him, unitarians are effectively making Jesus a second god. Instead, I will rely on the logic of Prof. Dale Tuggy, a philosopher who happens to be one of the world's leading biblical unitarian apologists. Tuggy has made a formal logical argument that the Trinity contradicts monotheism. I argue here that, if this argument is valid (which I deny it is), it also implies that unitarian theology contradicts monotheism, unless the Holy Spirit is defined in a way that does violence to the biblical witness.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Let me state up front that, unlike Tuggy, I am not a philosopher or an analytic theologian. So I will not be too formal or technical in my argument. If the reader spots flaws in my logic, please do let me know by leaving a comment.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. Tuggy's Argument against the Trinity</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In his research review essay, "Metaphysics and Logic of the Trinity," Tuggy briefly traces out the history of the Trinity as a philosophical theory (as he sees it).<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> Tuggy then constructs a formal logical argument <i>against </i>the Trinity and discusses various ways that recent analytic theologians have sought to counter it (unsuccessfully, in his view) and salvage the Trinity.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The full argument can be viewed <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-27#oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-27-div1-4" target="_blank">here</a>; the claims and justifications (without the logical and semi-logical translations) are reproduced below.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<table border="1px solid black">
<tbody><tr><td><b>Claim</b></td><td><b>Justification</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>1. The Father is divine.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>2. The Son is divine.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>3. The Father and Son have differed.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>4. Things which have differed are non-identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>5. Therefore, Father and Son are non-identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">3, 4</td></tr>
<tr><td>6. For any two (or “two”) things, they are the same god only if each is divine, and they are identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>7. Therefore, Father and Son are not the same god.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">5, 6</td></tr>
<tr><td>8. Therefore, there are at least two gods.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">1, 2, 7</td></tr>
<tr><td>9. There is exactly one god.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>10. But this is contradictory.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">8, 9</td></tr>
<tr><td>11. Therefore, one or more of these is false: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">1-10</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Tuggy observes that premises 1, 2, 3, and 9 are affirmed in Trinitarian dogma and argues that 4 and 6 follow from "Unaided human reason, quite apart from any theological concerns." If the argument is valid, it entails that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic and thus contradicts monotheism (premise 9).<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> Tuggy maintains that it is valid, and that the best option—in light of biblical revelation—is to deny premise 2 (that the Son is divine) and adopt unitarianism. Tuggy uses the argument to describe various Trinity theories in terms of how they seek (unsuccessfully, in his view) to avoid the conclusion that the Trinity contradicts monotheism. This is usually done by denying one or more of the premises.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">While I personally lack the philosophical expertise to formally argue the point, my intuition is that premises 4 and 6 are both invalid as applied to God, since they treat "Father" and "Son" as "things" and "god" as a "sort" of thing. This runs contrary to the classical Christian doctrine of God's <a href="https://credomag.com/article/simplicity-and-trinity-friends-or-foes/" target="_blank">simplicity</a>, which posits that God is not composed of parts and implies that God is not merely the greatest of all "things" that exist, but is <i>existence itself</i>, and thus the ground and cause of all "things."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, for purposes of this article I am going to assume <i>arguendo </i>the validity of Tuggy's argument. In the next section, we will alter the argument slightly by replacing the Son with the Holy Spirit and use the revised argument to conclude that unitarian doctrine also entails multiple gods (bitheism to be exact).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. Turning Tuggy's Argument against Unitarianism</a></b><br /><br /></div><div>We revise Tuggy's argument simply by replacing all references to "the Son" (in 2, 3, 5, and 7) with "the Holy Spirit."</div><div><br />
<table border="1px solid black">
<tbody><tr><td><b>Claim</b></td><td><b>Justification</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>1. The Father is divine.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>2'. The Holy Spirit is divine.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>3'. The Father and Holy Spirit have differed.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>4. Things which have differed are non-identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>5'. Therefore, Father and Holy Spirit are non-identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">3', 4</td></tr>
<tr><td>6. For any two (or “two”) things, they are the same god only if each is divine, and they are identical.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>7'. Therefore, Father and Holy Spirit are not the same god.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">5', 6</td></tr>
<tr><td>8. Therefore, there are at least two gods.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">1, 2', 7'</td></tr>
<tr><td>9. There is exactly one god.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">Premise</td></tr>
<tr><td>10. But this is contradictory.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">8, 9</td></tr>
<tr><td>11. Therefore, one or more of these is false: 1, 2', 3', 4, 6, 9.</td><td style="text-align: justify;">1-10</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">From a Trinitarian perspective, nothing has changed about the validity and implications of the argument (since, for Trinitarians, the Holy Spirit is another of what the Son is).<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> From a unitarian perspective, however, the Holy Spirit is <i>not </i>another of what the Son is, but is something entirely different. This is precisely what makes the revised argument interesting, for while unitarians certainly deny the original premise 2 (that the Son is divine), it is not clear that they deny 2' (that the Holy Spirit is divine). Consequently, unless unitarians deny one of the other premises in the revised argument, the conclusion follows (according to Tuggy's logic) that unitarianism contradicts monotheism.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We will describe unitarian pneumatology in more detail below and discuss how unitarians might rescue monotheism from the jaws of Tuggy's argument, and at what cost in terms of interpreting the biblical witness. But first, let us pre-empt a shortcut that some unitarians may wish to take to avoid the issue. Perhaps a unitarian would deny premise 3', that the Father and the Holy Spirit have differed. But not so fast. Consider Tuggy's own justification for the original premise 3 (that the Father and Son have differed):</div><div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Premise 3 is implied by the New Testament and by any trinitarian theology. The Father sends his unique Son to save the world, but Jesus does not do that; Jesus doesn’t send his own Son into the world.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The same justification can be given for premise 3'. God (the Father) sends his Spirit,<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> but the Holy Spirit does not send its Spirit. Therefore, the Father and the Holy Spirit have differed. By Tuggy's own logic, premise 3' stands.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. Biblical Unitarian Pneumatologies</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There does not seem to be any doctrinal consensus among biblical unitarians concerning what the Holy Spirit is. Indeed, the <a href="https://www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/the-uca-affirmation/" target="_blank">statement of belief</a> that one must affirm to join the Unitarian Christian Alliance (a biblical unitarian network organisation) <i>makes no mention of the Holy Spirit!</i> Thus, while biblical unitarians (today, at least) seem to be united in what they <i>deny </i>about the Holy Spirit—that it is a Person—there seems to be no particular <i>affirmation </i>about the Holy Spirit that unites them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Moreover, unitarian/Trinitarian polemic concerning the Holy Spirit tends to concentrate largely on the question of personhood (and, a functional level, on whether the Holy Spirit is active).<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> This debate is over personhood is practically a red herring, as I have <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2019/06/what-or-who-is-holy-spirit.html" target="_blank">argued previously</a>. This is partly because unitarian-Trinitarian debaters do not agree on (and often do not even mention) a definition of personhood,<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup> and partly because Trinitarian theologians do not claim that "Person" (or any other noun) completely captures what the Father, Son, and Spirit are in their distinctness.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> Whether or not the Holy Spirit is a "Person" is also irrelevant to Tuggy's logical argument and thus will not be discussed here.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biblical unitarians, then, emphatically deny that the Holy Spirit is a person, but it is very difficult to pin down what biblical unitarians affirm about that the Holy Spirit. I will attempt to summarise four views that I have encountered, but I must stress that biblical unitarian writers often use vague language about the Holy Spirit and sometimes seem to vacillate between two or more of the views below in the same document.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4_1" name="osec4_1">4.1. The Holy Spirit is a divine power or energy</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most common definitions of the Holy Spirit that one finds in biblical unitarian literature describes it as God's power. For example, a website called <a href="https://christadelphian.org.au/our-beliefs/" target="_blank">Australian Christadelphians</a> summarises Christadelphian beliefs about God thus: "There is only one eternal, immortal God. Jesus Christ is his only begotten son and the Holy Spirit is his power." <a href="http://www.cbm.org.uk/cbm40lesson20.pdf" target="_blank">Catechetical materials</a> produced by the Christadelphian Bible Mission (CBM) state that "The Spirit of God is His power through which He makes and supports all things."<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> The BBC's <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/christadelphians_1.shtml" target="_blank">profile of Christadelphians</a> states simply, "They believe that the Holy Spirit is the power of God." Christadelphian apologists James H. Broughton and Peter J. Southgate describe the Holy Spirit as "the Father's mind and power." They subsequently describe God's Spirit as "His agent," while qualifying that this agent is "not a separate person" and does not have "its own volition."<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This language is frustratingly vague. What kind of agent lacks volition (which seems to be necessary for agency)?<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> And what exactly is meant by "his power"? Jesus Christ is also called the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24), but no one would accept "God's power" as an adequate definition of Jesus Christ. So what is this thing that is God's power? Is it something concrete like an energy or force, or something abstract like a property or attribute?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some biblical unitarian writers tend more in the concrete direction. The Racovian Catechism of the Polish Brethren (originally published in 1605) offers such a view: "The Holy Spirit is a virtue or energy flowing from God to men, and communicated to them."<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> In our own time, Anthony Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting write, "In both Testaments 'Holy Spirit' describes the energy of God directed to creation and inspiration. It is God in action and an extension of His personality."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> The 19th-century founders of the Christadelphian movement, John Thomas and Robert Roberts, describe the Spirit of God in concrete, quasi-physical terms as a kind of energy or matter, and Roberts seems to literally equate it with electricity.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> Graham Pearce characterises the Spirit of God as "power, as light from a source."<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biblical unitarian writer Sean Finnegan, in an article entitled <i><a href="https://www.academia.edu/42254772/A_Unitarian_View_of_the_Holy_Spirit" target="_blank">A Unitarian View of the Holy Spirit</a></i>, sets out to "put forth a scriptural definition of the Holy Spirit." Having dismissed the idea that the Holy Spirit is "merely an impersonal power...like a battery pack," Finnegan describes "spirit of God" as a "literary device," "a way of referring to Yahweh in action" (which sounds like definition 4.3 below). Yet when he finally offers a "definition," it is more convoluted:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The holy spirit is God in action...as well as the abiding helper distributed under the auspices of the Father by the ascended Messiah... Thus one could say, 'the holy spirit is God,' as well as, 'the holy spirit is Christ,' even though it is technically neither, since they are in heaven, whereas the holy spirit is in God's people. The spirit is simply the way God and Christ are able to indwell and influence the church.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So the holy spirit is God in action, but one would technically be wrong to say "the holy spirit is God." The definition starts off plainly but ends with a non-definition, as a "way...to influence" simply raises the question, "So what is it?" Indeed, "way...to influence" sounds very much like an impersonal power, so it seems Finnegan has taken the reader by a circuitous route back to what he had rejected earlier.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If "Holy Spirit" names a concrete thing like an energy or force distinct from the Father, and this energy or force is divine (which appears to follow if it can be called "God in action" and "<i>God's </i>power"), then premises 2' and 3' hold firm. Therefore, this brand of unitarian pneumatology entails bitheism, if Tuggy's argument is valid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4_2" name="osec4_2">4.2. The Holy Spirit is a property or aspect of God</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Summarising his argument concerning the Holy Spirit in a debate with a Trinitarian, Christadelphian apologist Dave Burke <a href="https://credohouse.org/blog/the-great-trinity-debate-part-6-dave-burkes-closing-statement" target="_blank">writes</a>,</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">In Week 4 we saw that the OT provides a consistent doctrine of the Spirit as the power of God manifesting His divine presence; yet not a divine person ('God the Holy Spirit') or the totality of God Himself. We saw that throughout the OT, God’s Holy Spirit is described as something that <i>belongs</i> to Him, like a property or a power. We saw that the NT follows this model exactly, without deviating in any way from OT teaching.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Again, we have some serious vagueness here. Is it <i>like </i>a property or a power, but in fact some unnamed third thing, or <i>is it </i>a property or a power? And if the latter, which of the two is it? (It is a recurring theme of biblical unitarian pneumatology that writers are unable to capture what the Holy Spirit is under a single term.)<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> But, notably, Burke characterises the Holy Spirit as something that belongs to God but cannot be fully identified with him ("not...the totality of God Himself").</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is the Holy Spirit therefore something distinct from God? Or is the Holy Spirit a <i>part </i>of God (akin to his mind, or analogous to the spirit of man)?<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> If the former, then premise 3' holds, and bitheism follows according to Tuggy's argument (unless the Spirit is sub-divine, on which see below). If the latter, then premise 3' may not hold (as the Spirit is then part of the Father, not different from him), but we are not out of the woods. This would be a denial of the classical doctrine of God's simplicity (which holds that God is not composed of parts). But if God (the Father) is a totality composed of parts, and his Spirit is one of the parts, there must be at least one other part that is not the Spirit. Take that part and replace "the Father" with it in premises 1, 3', 5', and 7' in the revised argument. We will still have two things (the Spirit and the Other Part) that differ and that are divine, so by Tuggy's argument we still have at least two gods.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4_3" name="osec4_3">4.3. The Holy Spirit is a circumlocution for God the Father</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A third view denies that the term "Holy Spirit" names any distinct reality. "Holy Spirit" is simply a name of God or a circumlocution for God, a "way of speaking" that emphasises especially God's presence and activity in creation. This view is less commonly articulated by Christadelphians but is prevalent among other biblical unitarians such as those who maintain the 21st Century Reformation website and BiblicalUnitarian.com.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The 21st Century Reformation website <a href="https://21stcr.org/subjects/the-holy-spirit/" target="_blank">states</a>, "The spirit of God is not a separate individual from the Father. <i>It is the Father</i> extending himself to us by his mighty power" (emphasis added). In another article on the same site, J. Dan Gill <a href="https://21stcr.org/holy-spirit/the-holy-spirit-articles/experiencing-god-by-his-spirit/" target="_blank">states</a>, under the heading "His Spirit is Him,"</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The spirit of God is the Father himself at work... the spirit of God is not a separate agent or person of co-Deity. Rather, it is the Father in action. What has been done by the hand or spirit of God has literally been done by the Father himself.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">An anonymous article "<a href="https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/holy-spirit/what-about-the-holy-spirit" target="_blank">What about 'the Holy Spirit'?</a>" on BiblicalUnitarian.com expresses a similar view:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Since 'the only true God' is 'the Father,' and since He is 'holy' and He is 'spirit,' He is also referred to in Scripture as 'the Holy Spirit.' ... The Giver is God, the only true God, the Father, the Holy Spirit... the Holy Spirit is not a person, existing independently of God; it is <i>a way of speaking about</i> God’s personally acting in history, or of the risen Christ’s personally acting in the life and witness of the Church. (emphasis added)</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another anonymous article on the same site, "<a href="https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/what-is-the-holy-spirit" target="_blank">What is the Holy Spirit?</a>" adds that the term "Holy Spirit" has two distinct meanings in Scripture, which should actually be capitalised differently to distinguish them:</div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">In the Bible, “HOLY SPIRIT” is primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself, and the other way is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit, and “the Holy Spirit” (capital “H” and “S”) is one of the many “names,” or designations, for God (the one God, known as “Yahweh”). Also, however, God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift to spiritually empower them, and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as “holy spirit” (lower case “h” and “s”)... “HOLY SPIRIT” is either a way of speaking about God, or the gift of God’s nature<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></div><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This view of the Holy Spirit looks a lot like Sabellianism or modalism, a heresy in the early church that reduced the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to modes of divine revelation like masks God would put on, rather than maintaining the real distinction between the three.<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> However, it is not really modalism, because in this case God the Father is the reality and the Holy Spirit is neither the reality nor a mode. It is merely a "way of speaking about" the Father: a literary device; a figure of speech. In short, the Holy Spirit as such <i>does not exist—</i>does not name any distinct ontological reality—and for that reason this circumlocution pneumatology could be called <i>apneumatism</i>. It is not very far removed from the view held by some disciples in Ephesus who admitted that they were not aware "that there is a holy spirit" (Acts 19:2).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The circumlocution view does avoid the charge of bitheism under Tuggy's argument, since it denies premise 3' (that the Father and the Holy Spirit differ). The question is, at what cost in terms of fidelity to the biblical witness?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4_4" name="osec4_4">4.4. The Holy Spirit is a sub-divine, created thing</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The notion that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, is a sub-divine creature or created thing would allow unitarians to escape Tuggy's argument by denying premise 2'. However, this does not seem to be a popular position among contemporary unitarians. It has had its proponents historically; it seems to have been popular among non-Trinitarians of the patristic age.<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup> A famous post-Reformation defender was the 17th-century English unitarian John Biddle. In his <i>Confession of Faith</i>, Biddle argues that Ephesians 4:4-6 implies that the Holy Spirit is created:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">For when he saith, that there is one Spirit, he must mean either one <i>created</i>, or one <i>uncreated</i> Spirit, since (whatsoever some talk to the contrary) no other kind of Spirit is conceivable: Not one <i>uncreated</i> Spirit, for so there will be another <i>uncreated</i> Spirit besides God, (which is absurd) since this Spirit here is plainly and purposely distinguished from God; wherefore he meaneth one <i>created</i> Spirit<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He proceeds to infer "that the holy Spirit is in the number of Angels... I intimate the Holy Spirit to be an Angel"<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> To identify the Holy Spirit as an angel one must first accept his personhood, which Biddle did but most unitarians do not.<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup> However, it is in principle possible to view the Holy Spirit as a sub-divine energy or power (as in 4.1) that God creates or produces. Some contemporary unitarians seem to hint that the Holy Spirit is sub-divine without explicitly stating that it is created. Dave Burke, for instance, writes concerning the Farewell Discourse of John 14-16 that Jesus' language</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">does not ascribe any divine names or titles to the Holy Spirit, and it does not ascribe any uniquely divine properties, privileges or attributes to the Holy Spirit. Why doesn’t Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as “God”, or even “Lord”?</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite such language, one generally does not find unitarians who hold view 4.1 or 4.2 above explicitly calling the Holy Spirit sub-divine or denying that the Holy Spirit is divine. There are obvious logical reasons for this: how can "the Spirit of God" not be divine? How can God make himself present through a sub-divine force or energy? Or how can God have a sub-divine property or be composed of sub-divine parts?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4_5" name="osec4_5">4.5. Summary</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Those who hold one of the first two views—that the Holy Spirit is a divine thing (such as a power or energy or property or aspect)—seem to affirm premises 2' and 3', and are therefore, by the logic of Tuggy's argument, bitheists. Those who hold one of the last two views—that the Holy Spirit is a circumlocution for God the Father, or a sub-divine created thing—escape the charge of bitheism, by denying premise 3' or 2', respectively. The third and fourth views are thus stronger theological positions (again, assuming the validity of Tuggy's argument). The question that we need to ask, however, is whether these two positions are tenable in light of the biblical witness. In the next section, we will argue briefly that they are not.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit5_1" name="osec5">5. A Biblical Critique of the Circumlocution and Creature Pneumatologies</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before discussing the merits of views 4.3 and 4.4 in light of Scripture, let us observe that these two pneumatologies are in direct contradiction, as strongly as (say) Arianism and Sabellianism in Christology. Any argument that the Holy Spirit is simply a "way of speaking about" the Father will necessarily refute the idea that the Holy Spirit is sub-divine or created, and vice versa. In fact, however, the Scriptures overwhelmingly testify that the Holy Spirit is <i>both </i>distinct from the Father <i>and </i>divine.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit5_1" name="osec5_1">5.1. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the Hebrew Bible there is definite tension between the identification between God and his Spirit and the distinction between God and his Spirit. Mehrdad Fatehi summarises well:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The <i>ruach Yahweh</i> in the OT is a relational concept referring to Yahweh in his active relation to his creation and his people. This has three important corollaries: 1) The Spirit does not refer primarily to Yahweh as he is in himself or to his inner being or personality, but to Yahweh as he communicates himself, i.e. his power, his life, his wisdom, his will, or his presence, to the world. 2) Nevertheless, the Spirit of Yahweh is never regarded as an entity distinct or separable from Yahweh. It rather represents Yahweh <i>himself </i>in his action towards the world. 3) Yahweh though is not reduced to his <i>ruach</i>. The identification between Yahweh and his Spirit is always <i>dynamic</i>. Yahweh is always greater than his revelatory or redemptive act through his Spirit.<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is an obvious tension here: the Spirit is Yahweh himself but in a dynamic relation that cannot be reduced to simple identity as in Yahweh = <i>ruach</i> <i>Yahweh</i>. The tension means that the Spirit cannot be reduced to a sub-divine entity separate from God (<i>pace </i>view 4.4 above) but also that it cannot be reduced to a circumlocution for God (<i>pace </i>view 4.3). Preserving this tension and avoiding reductionism is one of the advantages of Trinitarian theology. But I digress.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most intriguing references to the Spirit in the Hebrew Bible occurs in Isaiah 48:16. Here, between two oracles spoken by God in the first person ("Thus says Yahweh...") is sandwiched a little speech by a mysterious third party:</div><div></div><blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Draw near to me, hear this!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">From the beginning I have not spoken in secret,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">from the time it came to be I have been there.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit. (NRSV)</div></div><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This verse has so vexed scholars that some regard part or all of the verse as a late gloss, or propose various emendations of the text.<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup> If we interpret as it stands (as the Church Fathers did, unsurprisingly in Trinitarian fashion),<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> we have a quasi-divine figure who uses language just like Yahweh has been using throughout deutero-Isaiah about having existed and spoken from the beginning,<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> <i>and yet who distinguishes himself from God as having been sent by him. </i>Most intriguing for our purposes is that the quasi-divine speaker groups himself together with the Spirit as having been sent by God. If the Spirit is merely a circumlocution for God, we apparently have in this passage two circumlocutions for God—one of them unnamed—who are distinguished from God as having been sent by him!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pursuant to the idea expressed in Isaiah 48:16, in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is re-revealed as a figure (whether you choose to call it a person or a thing) <i>analogous to the Son of God</i>. Just as the Father sent the Son, so he will sent "another Advocate" (<i>allos paraklētos</i>, John 14:16) who, like Jesus, will not speak on his own, but what he hears from the Father (John 16:13; cp. 5:30; 7:17). Since biblical unitarians emphatically affirm that the Son is distinct from the Father—indeed, Tuggy used precisely such "sending" language as proof of this—they should have no difficulty acknowledging that the Spirit is likewise distinct from the Father. And if this were not enough, we have numerous passages where the Holy Spirit is listed alongside the Father and the Son.<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup> How can we read "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) and conclude that the Son is really distinguished from the Father but the Holy Spirit is not? Or how can the Spirit be described as the Spirit of God's Son (Gal. 4:6) if God's Son is a distinct,<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup> sub-divine figure but the Spirit is a circumlocution for God himself?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit5_2" name="osec5_2">5.2. The Holy Spirit is divine</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Although, as mentioned, few unitarians since John Biddle have denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, it is worth briefly commenting on this issue. We have already stated that it is difficult to conceive of how the Holy Spirit could be a power, energy, property, or part of God without being divine itself. As for being a creature, the Scriptures speak of the Spirit's involvement in creation (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30, Judith 16:14), but never—as far as I can tell—of the Spirit having been created. In Acts 5:3-4, Peter equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. And Jesus teaches that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the one kind of blasphemy that will not be forgiven (Matt. 12:31-32 par.) This, together with the broad evidence for dynamic identity between God and his Spirit (as acknowledged by the "circumlocution camp") ought to suffice to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is divine.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We can very briefly respond to six of biblical unitarian Sean Finnegan's objections about the Holy Spirit, though he is not explicitly objecting to the Holy Spirit's divinity, but to the idea that the Holy Spirit is a distinct "<i>person</i>." (1) Finnegan objects that the Holy Spirit does not have a name, whereas the Father and the Son do. But Matthew 28:19 explicitly says "in the name of the Father and [the name] of the Son and [the name] of the Holy Spirit." The words <i>to onoma </i>("the name") are not repeated thrice as this would be verbose and redundant, since it is obvious to the reader that the parallel occurrences of <i>kai tou </i>("and of the") refer back to <i>onoma</i>. (2) The Holy Spirit never sends greetings in the salutations in Paul's letters. But if we regard Paul's letters as Scripture, and the Holy Spirit speaks through scriptural authors (Acts 28:25), then the Holy Spirit is speaking these greetings from the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Finnegan seems to have overlooked that in Revelation 1:4-5, the seven churches of Asia do explicitly receive greetings from God, "and <i>from the seven spirits before his throne</i>, and from Jesus Christ". As Bogdan G. Bucur writes,</div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The blessing with ‘grace and peace’ is suggestive of a divine origin. The three must, then, in some way stand for the divinity…It seems most likely, therefore, that the mentioning of the ‘seven spirits’ corresponds to the expected reference to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the author’s expression ‘seven spirits’ would designate what the early Church usually referred to as ‘Holy Spirit.’<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup></div><div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">(3) The Holy Spirit is owned by God, because it is called "the Spirit of God" the way Grace's dog might be called "the dog of Grace." This is an oversimplification of the function of the genitive, which has many functions besides ownership. Moreover, if Finnegan's argument holds then the phrase "the Spirit of Christ" implies that the Holy Spirit is also owned by Christ—a real oddity for unitarian theology. In fact, the genitive can refer to <i>source</i>. And as the Creed itself states, the Holy Spirit <i>proceeds from </i>the Father and the Son. (4) The Holy Spirit is never prayed to. This objection misapprehends the function of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The Spirit is not primarily regarded as dwelling in heaven but in the church and in the hearts of the faithful. Therefore, rather than praying <i>to </i>the Holy Spirit, believers pray <i>in </i>the Holy Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 3:3; Jude 20), and the Spirit intercedes for them (Rom. 8:26-27). (5) The Holy Spirit is missing from statements like that of Matthew 11:27 ("No one knows the Father but the Son, and no one knows the Son but the Father"). This is an argument from silence; if the theological implication is that the Holy Spirit does not know the Father or the Son, it is odd that Paul should elsewhere write, "So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 2:11 NRSV) (6) The Holy Spirit is left out of heavenly throne visions such as those in Isaiah 6, Daniel 7, and Revelation 4. Firstly, some early Christian interpreters understood the two "seraphim" in Isaiah's vision to be the Son and the Spirit.<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup> Secondly, the absence of the Spirit of God from the vision of Daniel 7 is hardly surprising given that the Book of Daniel never mentions the Spirit of God at all.<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup> Thirdly, the throne vision of Revelation 4 <i>does </i>mention "and in front of the throne burn seven flaming torches, which are the seven spirits of God" (Rev. 4:5 NRSV). The unusual phraseology does not mean that the seven spirits of God are other than the Holy Spirit; the expression alludes to the seven operations of the Spirit of God mentioned in Isaiah 11:2-3 LXX.<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup> In Revelation 5:6, the seven spirits of God are depicted again, now as seven horns and eyes of the Lamb in the midst of the throne. So the Holy Spirit is certainly not absent from the throne in this vision.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit6" name="osec6">6. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biblical unitarians who teach a pneumatology like that described in 4.1 or 4.2 above—that the Holy Spirit is a power, energy, property, or aspect of God—have departed from monotheism, at least according to the logical argument of unitarian philosopher Prof. Dale Tuggy. Biblical unitarians who wish to avoid bitheism basically have two options, which are the circumlocution pneumatology that I have pejoratively called <i>apneumatism </i>(4.3) and a sub-divine creature pneumatology like that of John Biddle (4.4). However, both of these positions are biblically untenable.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">An alternative is to reject the logic of Tuggy's argument. But in that case, biblical unitarians must either construct a new argument or admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is monotheistic. And so perhaps the best option of all for biblical unitarians is to <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2016/10/our-nicene-common-ancestor.html" target="_blank">return to their catholic roots</a> and accept the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the touchstone of Christian unity for over 1600 years. While Trinitarian theology is often accused of overcomplication, the Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit can be stated very straightforwardly: the Holy Spirit is another of what the Father and the Son are. Call it a divine "Person" if you prefer.</div><div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Dale Tuggy, "Metaphysics and Logic of the Trinity," <i>Oxford Handbooks Online </i>(2016): 1-8. doi: <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-27">10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.27</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> "Multitheistic" might be a more accurate term, since the prefix "poly-" means "many" and not merely "multiple." However, the word English <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multitheism" target="_blank">multitheism</a> is usually used to refer to the existence of multiple kinds of theism, rather than the belief in multiple gods.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> This is not to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are identical for Trinitarians, since for example the Son has become incarnate and the Spirit has not.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> See, e.g., Psalm 104:30, Wisdom 9:17, John 14:26, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:12, Revelation 5:6.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> The debate over whether the Spirit is active is sharpest among Christadelphians, who have historically held a <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2015/12/the-spirit-word-then-and-now-history-of.html" target="_blank">hypercessationist</a> position. I have not looked extensively into what other biblical unitarian groups believe about the Spirit's present activity, but they do seem to allow for it.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> See further discussion on pp. 3-4 of my <i><a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/Farrar_Review_and_Response_Buzzard_Hunting_Trinity_07.06.2021.pdf" target="_blank">Review of and Response to The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, By Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting</a></i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> St. Augustine discusses this at length in his work <i>de Trinitate</i>. He usually refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as three <i>personae </i>("persons"), but acknowledges that this term is insufficient: "When, then, it is asked what the three are, or who the three are, we betake ourselves to the finding out of some special or general name under which we may embrace these three; and no such name occurs to the mind, because the super-eminence of the Godhead surpasses the power of customary speech" (<i>de Trinitate</i>, VII.4.7). At one point he famously remarks that it cannot be denied that there are <i>tria quaedem </i>("three somethings," <i>de Trinitate </i>VII.4.9), just as St. Anselm would later write, "And so it is evidently expedient for every man to believe in a certain ineffable trinal unity, and in one Trinity; one and a unity because of its one essence, but trinal and a trinity because of its three—what (<i>tres nescio quid</i>, literally "three I know not what")? For, although I can speak of a Trinity because of Father and Son and the Spirit of both, who are three; yet I cannot, in one word, show why they are three" (<i>Monologion </i>79).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Some biblical unitarian writers suggest that the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are different (e.g., Graham Pearce, <i>The Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit Gifts </i>[Adelaide: Logos, 1975], 13). Such a distinction is unwarranted. That these terms are interchangeable is evident from passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:3, Ephesians 4:30, and Romans 15:16-18. Often in the New Testament the shorter term "the Spirit" is used.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> <i>The Trinity: True or False?</i> (2nd edn; Nottingham: The Dawn Book Supply, 2002), 82, 93, 97.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> One definition of agency given by <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agency" target="_blank">Cambridge Dictionary</a> is "the ability to take action or to choose what action to take". Notably, 1 Corinthians 12:11 certainly appears to ascribe volition to the Spirit, stating that it allots gifts to each person <i>as it wishes</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Thomas Rees (trans.), The Racovian Catechism (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1818), 285).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> <i>The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound </i>(Lanham: International Scholars Publications, 1998), 226.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> See footnotes in the tenth paragraph of <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2019/06/what-or-who-is-holy-spirit.html" target="_blank">this article</a> for relevant quotations from their writings.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> <i>The Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit Gifts</i>, 13.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> It is the Father's mind <i>and </i>his power; it is like a property <i>or </i>a power; it is one of the names of God <i>and </i>it is the gift of God. Christadelphian writer Aleck Crawford, in his book <i>The Spirit: A General Exposition on New Testament Usage </i>(1974) does not give any definition of the Spirit, and seems to think it inadvisable to do so. But he conflates the multivalence of the Greek word <i>pneuma </i>with the particularity of the reality designated "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God": "The very large number of attempts that have been made at establishing a blanket rule is itself an indication of the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of arriving at a universally satisfactory solution to the problem."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> We have seen above that Broughton and Southgate equate the Holy Spirit with the Father's mind. About the closest that Christadelphian writer Peter Schwartzkopff comes to defining the Spirit of God in his book of that title is, "Clearly in one sense the Spirit of God has to do with his mind –his way of thinking and feeling" (<i>The Spirit of God </i>[n.d.], 5). To his credit, Schwartzkopff realises that he is trying to "Defin[e] the Undefinable" (<i>ibid., </i>3), seemingly acknowledging that there is an element of mystery in any attempt to describe God. Biblical unitarian Kermit Zarley <a href="https://21stcr.org/holy-spirit/the-holy-spirit-articles/is-the-holy-spirit-itself-a-person/" target="_blank">writes</a> that "the Spirit of God is to God what the spirit of man is to man." This matter-of-fact anthropomorphism seems to miss that any analogy we may make from the human sphere to describe God is going to be woefully inadequate for describing his infinite majesty.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> Ironically, another biblical unitarian, Kermit Zarley, <a href="https://21stcr.org/holy-spirit/the-holy-spirit-articles/is-the-holy-spirit-itself-a-person/" target="_blank">criticises</a> Trinitarian translators for capitalising "Holy Spirit" whereas the original biblical manuscripts did not distinguish between lower and upper case and thus only reflect interpretative bias.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Notably, Sean Finnegan actually describes Old Testament language about the spirit of God as "ways of referring to the almighty, transcendent God in His mode of acting within creation".</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Fourth-century Church Fathers such as St. Basil of Caesarea warned about those who attack the Holy Spirit (called Pneumatomachi) by asserting that he "is a creature" (Basil of Caesarea, <i>Letters</i>,<i> </i>8.10).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> John Biddle, <i>A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity according to the Scripture </i>(London: 1648), 3.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> <i>Confession of Faith</i>, 50, 57.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> Biddle rebuts the arguments of other non-Trinitarians who held the Holy Spirit to be a personified power.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> <i>The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications</i> (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 63.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> For an overview of the text and interpretative options, see Wonsuk Ma, <i>Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah</i> (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 117-21.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> Origen, the earliest extant writer to cite this passage, writes: "Since, however, it is a Jew who raises difficulties in the story of the Holy Spirit's descent in the form of a dove to Jesus, I would say to him: My good man, who is the speaker in Isaiah who says 'And now the Lord sent me and his spirit'? In this text although it is doubtful whether it means that the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus or that the Father sent Christ and the Holy Spirit, it is the second interpretation which is right. After the Saviour had been sent, then the Holy Spirit was sent, in order that the prophet's saying might be fulfilled" (<i>Contra Celsum </i>1.46, trans. Henry Chadwick, <i>Origen: Contra Celsum: Translated with an Introduction and Notes</i> [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953], 42).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> Cf. Isaiah 40:21; 41:4; 41:26; 45:21; 46:10. Ma notes that if v. 16b ("And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit") is removed, "the entire passage from v. 12 to v. 22 flows undisturbed" (<i>Until the Spirit Comes</i>, 117). In other words, there is nothing about the first part of v. 16 to suggest that it is spoken by a figure other than God himself.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> E.g., Matthew 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 13:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2, Revelation 1:4-5.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> See also Acts 16:7, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> <i>Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses</i> (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 92.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> Origen, for instance, writes concerning his Jewish Christian teacher, "My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts, were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit." (<i>De Principiis</i> 1.3.4). This interpretation likely also underlies the throne vision in the late-first-century Jewish Christian apocalypse <i>The Ascension of Isaiah </i>(on which see more <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2016/03/incipient-trinitarianism-in-first.html" target="_blank">here</a>), in which Christ and the Spirit are seated at the right and left of the great throne, and both receive worship and worship the Great Glory. </li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> There are several mentions of "a spirit of the holy gods," but always on the lips of Babylonians.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> "And the spirit of God shall rest on him, the spirit of (1) wisdom and (2) understanding, the spirit of (3) counsel and (4) might, the spirit of (5) knowledge and (6) godliness. The spirit of (7) the fear of God will fill him." (NETS; numbering added). St. Augustine, quoting this text, asks, "Are they not there called the seven Spirits of God, while there is only one and the same Spirit dividing to every one severally as He will? But the septenary operation of the one Spirit was so called by the Spirit Himself" (<i>Tractates on the Gospel of John </i>122.8). St. Hippolytus of Rome actually paraphrases Isaiah 11:2 as stating, "And the seven spirits of God shall rest upon Him" (<i>Fragment on Proverbs 9:1</i>).</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com2Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-75428683053490719592021-12-27T11:44:00.004+02:002021-12-27T11:58:39.957+02:00Baconianism and the Intellectual Origins of the Christadelphian Movement<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. Bacon's Scientific Method</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. Scottish Common Sense Realism and the Baconian Theological Method</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. The Baconian Theological Method in the Stone-Campbell Movement</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec5" name="otit5">5. The (Anti-)Hermeneutic of John Thomas, Founder of the Christadelphians</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec6" name="otit6">6. A Critique of the Baconian Hermeneutic</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec7" name="otit7">7. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. Introduction</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">One cannot properly evaluate a religious movement without understanding its intellectual pedigree. The purpose of this article is to delve into a philosophical and hermeneutical school of thought called <i>Baconianism</i> that rose to prominence in early 19th-century America—especially among restorationists such as Alexander Campbell—and undoubtedly influenced John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians. At a descriptive level this will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of Christadelphian origins (for Christadelphians and anyone else interested in the movement). At a prescriptive level, the article also offers a critique of Baconianism.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Restorationism was a religious ideal that rose to prominence in the United States in the first half of the 19th century. Although the ideal took many forms, one of the most influential was that of the Stone-Campbell Movement. I have written on this movement <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2018/07/three-great-ironies-of-restorationism.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>, but briefly, it was founded by a Scottish Presbyterian minister, Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), and his son Alexander (1788-1866). The two other most influential leaders in the movement were Barton W. Stone (whose movement merged with the Campbells') and Walter Scott. This movement eventually gave rise to several denominations or groups that still exist today, including the Disciples of Christ, Christian churches, Church of Christ, and Christadelphians (whose founder, John Thomas, broke with Campbell and established his own sect in the late 1840s).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The key premises of the "restoration" spearheaded by Alexander Campbell were that (a) the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations of the day were all apostate, and (b) the antidote was to restore and spread what Campbell called the "ancient gospel and order of things," by attending to the plain truths of the Bible. This would "result in the unity of Christians and the conversion of the world."<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The focus of this article is on the method by which Campbell and his fellow restorationists sought to arrive at true doctrine. This has been called the Baconian hermeneutical<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> method because of its conscious indebtedness to Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), an English lawyer and philosopher who is regarded as the father of the scientific method. Before we describe the Baconian theological method, however, we need to provide background on Bacon's philosophy.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. Bacon's Scientific Method</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Bacon's main contributions on natural philosophy—what might today be called the philosophy of science—came toward the end of his life. He was a kind of scientific restorationist, in that he called for a "Great Instauration," which aimed at a "total reconstruction of the sciences, arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon the proper foundations."<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> This restoration was necessitated by deficiencies in the level of knowledge available in his day, in which words often counted more than facts, and superstition and error could easily be perpetuated. If only people used the right methods, Bacon believed, nature could be understood and controlled much better.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Bacon's work <i>Novum Organum</i> was intended to supplant Aristotle's <i>Organum</i>, which represented the traditional account of reasoning in science. The main features of Bacon's method were that it was inductive and experimental.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> It was inductive in the sense that it entailed inferring a general conclusion from particular facts, and experimental in the sense that these facts were to be ascertained from real, practical, systematic experiments. Indeed, Bacon called for new "experimental histories" to be written on almost every area of science as he understood it, creating catalogues of observed phenomena that could then serve as a basis for inductive reasoning. These histories had to be created anew because, in Bacon's judgment, experiments had been undertaken haphazardly in the past, without a view to inducing general principles.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. Scottish Common Sense Realism and the Baconian Theological Method</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Scottish Common Sense Realism was a philosophy founded by Thomas Reid (1710-1796), a Presbyterian minister and professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, where both Thomas and Alexander Campbell studied.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> As Foster explains,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Central to this philosophy was the belief that the data collected by the human senses, when confirmed by the testimony of others, was a reliable source of knowledge. Against the skeptical philosophy of David Hume, Reid insisted that the things humans perceive are the real external objects themselves, not images created by the mind. Through a careful, slow, painstaking process of experimentation and observation, of collecting data and inducing patterns, one could arrive at the facts—theoretically about anything.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Reid's philosophy revitalised both realism and the inductive method of reasoning. It entailed a radically optimistic view of the observer's objectivity and a favourable view of the inductive approach to learning and science championed by Sir Francis Bacon.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> Baconianism, as articulated by the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy (SCSP), entailed a scrupulous empiricism grounded in confidence in the senses, and inductive control of generalisations by constant reference to "facts".<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> As a corollary, "Abstract concepts not immediately forged from observed data have no place in scientific explanation."<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It would be difficult to overstate the influence of SCSP, and Baconianism in particular, on some parts of American Protestantism during the antebellum period.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> As Noll writes,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>the Common Sense philosophy has been the sole <i>intellectual</i> tradition for some evangelicals... for these evangelicals most of the functions normally fulfilled by a world view—habits of inquiry, assumptions about the construction and accessibility of truth, attitudes toward certainty and self-reflection—are the product almost exclusively of the Common Sense tradition.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Allen concurs:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">For significant sectors of American Protestantism during this period, Baconianism was held up as the true method for study of both the natural world and the Bible.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. The Baconian Theological Method in the Stone-Campbell Movement</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Noll notes that, "As a general rule, when a group professes to live by 'no creed but the Bible,' it is a good indication that it relies consistently, if not
necessarily self-consciously, on the Common Sense tradition."<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> And this was one of Alexander Campbell's most cherished slogans. "Let the Bible be substituted for all human creeds," he wrote;<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> and "We choose to speak of Bible things by Bible words."<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup> Waers argues that Campbell's appropriation of Scottish Common Sense philosophy was one of the major factors in his rejection of certain Reformed doctrines.<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> Equally, Campbell was an enthusiastic admirer of Bacon and his inductive method. He grouped Bacon with Locke and Newton as the three great thinkers of modernity,<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup> and his movement's first higher education institution was named Bacon College.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Bacon's natural philosophy was at the heart of Campbell's reformation movement. While Bacon had sought a scientific restoration, Campbell sought to employ Bacon's methods in a religious restoration. Having outlined "Lord Bacon's philosophy" of science, Campbell declared, "Now all that we want is to carry the same lesson and the same principle to theology."<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> As recent Campbell biographer Douglas Foster puts it, "Campbell would come to rely entirely on the Baconian method to arrive at Christian doctrine".<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup> In Campbell's theological method, the plain testimony of Scripture provided the "facts" (the data set) from which doctrines (generalisations) could be induced.<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> In Allen's words,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In order to bring about 'a restoration of the ancient order of things,' systematic theology was to be rejected and religious discussion confined to the 'plain declarations recorded in the Bible'... In the same way that Bacon wanted to abolish the medieval scholastic theories of science and place science upon an inductive basis, so Campbell wanted to abolish the dogmatic creeds and systems of religion and place Christianity upon an inductive basis.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div>Allen notes that the most explicit articulation of this Baconian hermeneutic is found in James S. Lamar's 1860 book <i>The Organon of Scripture</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup> Lamar was a graduate of Bacon College and his book received a glowing endorsement from the aged Campbell. For Lamar, the conflict of opposing creeds and doctrines in Christianity was due to "the uncertainty of biblical interpretation," which however was not due either to the ambiguity of the Bible or the depravity or incompetence of its interpreters, but to the use of flawed <i>methods</i> of interpretation.<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> What is required, therefore, is "the establishment of an all-comprehensive and pervading <i>method</i>" of biblical interpretation (or "hermeneutical science").<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup> This is none other than the Baconian method, which he proceeds to explain in great detail. Lamar touts the success of the Baconian method as implemented within the Stone-Campbell reformation:</div><div><blockquote>Their movement, in its incipiency, was a grand and determined effort to burst the bonds of ecclesiastical authority, to separate the Bible from its unholy and unnatural alliance with philosophy, to bring it to bear upon the minds and hearts of men responsible for the reception given to it, and to determine its meaning from its own words, without respect to recognized and consecrated dogmata. Their success is known and read of all... Their sturdy and manly blows battered down the walls which shut out the light of scientific truth, at the same time that they forced the corrupters of the faith to retire from the contest, and leave the Bible in the hands of responsible men in the exercise of common sense.<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup></blockquote></div><div><b><a href="#otit5" name="osec5">5. The (Anti-)Hermeneutic of John Thomas, Founder of the Christadelphians</a></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b> 5.1. Hints of Indebtedness to Baconianism</b></div><div><br /></div><div>John Thomas (1805-71) was a British medical doctor who emigrated to the United States in 1832. Within a few weeks he had taken up with the Campbells' restoration movement and was baptised by one of its leaders, Walter Scott. By 1834, Thomas had become a protégé of Alexander Campbell and launched his own periodical, <i>The Apostolic Advocate</i>. Within a few years, however, Thomas and Campbell fell out over two issues: Thomas' practice of (re-)baptising Baptists who joined the movement, and Thomas' teaching that death annihilates the human person. The two reconciled but soon fell out again, and by the early 1840s Thomas was <i>persona non grata </i>in many of the movement's churches (though he retained some loyal sympathisers, especially in Virginia). Thomas launched a new periodical, <i>Herald of the Future Age</i>, where in 1847 he published a "Confession and Abjuration," renouncing many of his previous beliefs. Now convinced that Campbell's movement was teaching heresy, he had himself re-baptised and began to enthusiastically spread the gospel as he understood it, both in North America and Great Britain. The result was what would (from 1864 onwards) be known as the Christadelphian community. Thomas continued itinerant preaching, editing the <i>Herald </i>(until 1860),<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> and writing books and pamphlets until his death in 1871.</div><div><br /></div><div>At the beginning of his career as a religious writer, Thomas refers to Bacon when outlining his approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation:</div><div><blockquote>Be it observed, however, that there is not a single speculation in the religion or doctrine of Christ. In my investigation, therefore, I have renounced speculation and substituted, according to the suggestion of lord Bacon, the simple narration of historical facts.<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup></blockquote></div><blockquote><div></div></blockquote><div>This is a Baconian statement worthy of Campbell, and suggests that Thomas was basically on board with the movement's SCSP-influenced Baconian hermeneutical programme. Further support for this can be found in Thomas' later writings,<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup> and he nowhere renounces the programme's basic principles of common-sense interpretation and constructing doctrine inductively.</div><div><br /></div><div><b> 5.2. De-Emphasis on Baconian (and all other) Hermeneutics</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Despite Thomas' apparent acceptance of Baconianism, his writings differ sharply from Campbell's in the degree of importance assigned to the method. For Campbell, the Baconian method of biblical interpretation was the key to the whole reformation, and if implemented consistently would unlock the door of doctrinal unity among Christians. Therefore he discusses the method frequently and in detail. Thomas seems to have adopted Baconianism, but he very rarely mentions it, or the methodology of biblical interpretation in general. Why is this?</div><div><br /></div><div>At least three reasons (which are not mutually exclusive) may be suggested. First, the beginning of the restoration movement is usually dated to 1809, when Thomas Campbell published his <i>Declaration and Address.</i> By the time John Thomas joined the movement in 1832, its Baconian hermeneutic was well-established and would have been assumed by most of Thomas' subsequent readers. Moreover, if this hermeneutic were self-evident "common sense," there was no need to defend it or theorise about it; one could just get on with practicing it. Hence, Thomas' relative silence on Baconianism could be attributed to his taking the method for granted.</div><div><br /></div><div>The second reason is a rhetorical one. Consider the following tension in Campbell's writings. On the one hand, he blames the schisms and parties that have abounded since the Reformation on "philosophy" and "opinions," and calls for "human philosophy" to "be thrown overboard into the sea," substituted by "the Bible only, in word and deed, in profession and practice."<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup> On the other hand, he is clearly operating within a Scottish Common Sense philosophical framework, and acknowledges his debt to Bacon, Locke, and other philosophers.<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup> Waers suggests that Campbell did not, or was unable to, see Baconianism as a philosophical theory.<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup> While Campbell may have missed the irony of using Enlightenment-era philosophy to "restore" ancient Christianity, Thomas may have perceived it. To successfully argue that one is a true "Bible-only" Protestant, one must downplay one's indebtedness to any post-biblical philosophy or hermeneutic. Therefore, by straightforwardly identifying his own interpretations with the "common-sense" or "natural" meaning of the Bible, Thomas could present himself as an independent, objective witness to Christian truth.</div><div><br /></div><div>The third reason stems from Thomas' schism with Campbell and other schisms in the restoration movement. If all were using the same (Baconian) method of interpretation, and yet were arriving at conflicting doctrines, the method itself must be insufficient. That Thomas thought in such terms is evident from his criticism of disparagement of the hermeneutical training of others, including Alexander Campbell. In assailing Bishop Robert Lowth's translation of Isaiah 18, he writes sarcastically of both Lowth and Campbell,</div><div><blockquote>Yet [Lowth] was profoundly skilled in 'hermeneutics,' at least as much so as any 'bible unionists' of our time, who are making so broad their phylacteries in new translationism, and the laws of exegesis! ... [Campbell] is of course well-skilled in all the settled canons of translation and interpretation sanctioned by the Protestant educated world... [but] what obscurity has he not deepened by his hermeneutics? Pshaw! What are 'canons' worth that reduce prophetic writings to a level with 'an old Jewish almanac?' ... A man may be profoundly skilled in hermeneutics, and yet profoundly incompetent to translate and interpret the Scriptures correctly. He is like one who can name his tools, but knows not how to use them.<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>Indeed, Thomas elsewhere dismisses the very term "hermeneutics" as part of a campaign of subterfuge! Commenting on the false knowledge mentioned in 1 Timothy 6:20, he states,</div><div><blockquote>The same thing is styled in our day 'theological science,' 'divinity,' 'ethics,' 'hermeneutics,' and so forth; terms invented to amaze the ignorant, and to impress them with the necessity of schools and colleges for the indoctrination of pious youth in the mysteries they learnedly conceal.<sup id="ref-footnote-33"><a href="#footnote-33" rel="footnote">33</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>Elsewhere, Thomas cites biblical passages about the need to be child-like, and about God using the foolish things of the world to confound the wise,<sup id="ref-footnote-34"><a href="#footnote-34" rel="footnote">34</a></sup> to argue that hermeneutics and philosophy hinder rather than help the theologian. Indeed, he scolds his former mentor Walter Scott for taking too much interest in Bacon:</div><div><blockquote>Though a very amiable gentleman, Mr. Scott has not yet become 'a little child;' and without this, the Great Teacher saith, we 'cannot enter into the kingdom of the heavens.' Mr. Scott must empty himself of his modern reformers, and the jargon of the schools; he must forget Bacon, Locke, and Logic... his brains are bewildered with analytic and synthetic synopsed until he can see no more; this must all be abandoned. A head under the pressure of all this learned lumber is unfit for the study of 'the word.' The heads of babes and sucklings out of whose mouths the Deity perfecteth praise, are not befuddled with such speculative twaddle. Mr. Scott must cease to ape 'the wise and prudent,' and become as a little child. So skilled in analytic, let him analyze the mentality of a child; and then let him synthesize the elements into a proposition, and conform thereto.<sup id="ref-footnote-35"><a href="#footnote-35" rel="footnote">35</a></sup></blockquote></div><div> <b>5.3. A Common Sense Antihermeneutic</b></div><div><br /></div><div>If "hermeneutics" and even "logic" ought to be forgotten, it is clear that for Thomas, neither the Baconian method nor any other method is the way to restore the apostolic order. This reading of Thomas' thought seems to be confirmed by the introduction to <i>Elpis Israel</i>—his evangelistic manifesto, first published in 1848. Thomas does provide information about his approach to the Bible, but he does not lay out his hermeneutic, or even admit to having one. Given this, together with his attacks on "hermeneutics" elsewhere, his hermeneutic would be best described as an <i>antimethodology—</i>defined by <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antimethodology" target="_blank">Wiktionary</a> as "An approach to study or analysis that eschews the usual methodology, or methodologies in general"<sup id="ref-footnote-36"><a href="#footnote-36" rel="footnote">36</a></sup>—or <i>antihermeneutic. </i>But how does Thomas propose to interpret the Bible if "hermeneutics" are off the table?</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Elpis Israel </i>makes clear that, for Thomas, the only way to arrive at religious truth is to know "the true meaning of the Bible."<sup id="ref-footnote-37"><a href="#footnote-37" rel="footnote">37</a></sup> However, there is an evil conspiracy at work: "the human mind has developed the organisation of a system of things impiously hostile to the institutions and wisdom of Jehovah"<sup id="ref-footnote-38"><a href="#footnote-38" rel="footnote">38</a></sup>; its name is "MYSTERY" and it is none other than Catholic and Protestant Christendom. To arrive at biblical truth, therefore, one must </div><div><blockquote>Cast away to the owls and to the bats the traditions of men, and the prejudices indoctrinated into thy mind by their means; make a whole burnt offering of their creeds, confessions, catechisms, and articles of religion... Let us repudiate their dogmatisms; let us renounce their mysteries; and let us declare our independence of all human authority in matters of faith and practice extra the word of God.<sup id="ref-footnote-39"><a href="#footnote-39" rel="footnote">39</a></sup></blockquote></div><div>Having jettisoned all ecclesiastical dogma and tradition and begun anew with a blank slate, the individual must "Search the scriptures with the teachableness of a little child," believing nothing but what can be "demonstrated by the grammatical sense of the scriptures."<sup id="ref-footnote-40"><a href="#footnote-40" rel="footnote">40</a></sup> The virtues that maximise the chances of correctly interpreting the Bible are "humility, teachableness, and independence of mind," and diligent seeking.<sup id="ref-footnote-41"><a href="#footnote-41" rel="footnote">41</a> </sup>In his other major work, <i>Eureka</i>, Thomas asks a rhetorical question that captures his common-sense antihermeneutic succinctly: "Suppose a man of common sense...study only the sacred books, is it not conceivable that he may acquire a competent, nay, even an eminent knowledge of the scriptures?"<sup id="ref-footnote-42"><a href="#footnote-42" rel="footnote">42</a></sup> </div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, for Thomas, the ingredients for sound doctrine are nothing more than the Bible itself and common sense, exercised with independence, humility, and diligence. One should not fail to notice the Baconian flavour of this antihermeneutic: dumping creeds and dogmas and limiting oneself to what is demonstrable from the grammatical sense of Scripture as adjudicated by common sense are axiomatic in Baconianism. However, Thomas does not place any emphasis or trust in a method. The locus of common sense interpretation is not the <i>method</i> (as with Lamar) but the <i>interpreter</i>. Common sense is a high virtue, and one that ironically—as Thomas writes elsewhere—"is common only to the few."<sup id="ref-footnote-43"><a href="#footnote-43" rel="footnote">43</a></sup></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="#otit6" name="osec6">6. A Critique of the Baconian Hermeneutic</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Before concluding, we will offer a critique of the Baconian hermeneutic, as espoused by the restoration movement and as practiced (more as an antihermeneutic) by John Thomas. The critique of Baconianism consists of three main points. First, it failed to deliver on its promise of producing doctrinal uniformity among Christians. Second, it failed to recognise important differences between natural science and textual hermeneutics. Third, it is fundamentally anachronistic and foreign to the theological method of the early church.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> <b>6.1. Failure to Deliver Doctrinal Unity</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While the young Alexander Campbell was optimistic that application of the Baconian method to biblical interpretation would usher in a golden age of Christian unity, his life's work was in fact beset by "constant and unrelenting conflicts with opponents and colleagues alike".<sup id="ref-footnote-44"><a href="#footnote-44" rel="footnote">44</a></sup> Instead of putting an end to denominational sectarianism in Christianity, the restoration simply added more denominations to the list: "in a movement long marked by theological and cultural rifts, the outcome finally was a bitter fundamentalist/modernist controversy and permanent division."<sup id="ref-footnote-45"><a href="#footnote-45" rel="footnote">45</a></sup> Foster's biography of Campbell devotes an eight-chapter section to "Defense and Conflict," describing bitter doctrinal disagreements between Campbell and others both inside and outside of his movement.<sup id="ref-footnote-46"><a href="#footnote-46" rel="footnote">46</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Similarly, the young James Lamar was almost triumphal in his book <i>The Organon of Scripture </i>about the Baconian hermeneutic's potential to put an end to doctrinal disagreement. However, </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><blockquote>The intellectual and spiritual odyssey of James S. Lamar from the 1850s to 1900 reflects his increasing disillusionment with the Baconian method as a tool to bring about Alexander Campbell's goal of unity through restoration of the 'ancient order.'<sup id="ref-footnote-47"><a href="#footnote-47" rel="footnote">47</a></sup></blockquote></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Lamar would live to see the definitive split of the Stone-Campbell Movement into two denominations, the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, in 1906. Thus, Baconianism failed to deliver the uniformity of doctrine that its proponents sought. And the reason for this probably lies in our next criticism of the method: its downplaying of subjectivity. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> <b>6.2. (Mis-)Application of a Scientific Method to Biblical Interpretation</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Bacon developed his inductive method for the natural sciences, and in this discipline there is some plausibility in the idea of assembling a set of experimental "facts" and reasoning inductively to a conclusion.<sup id="ref-footnote-48"><a href="#footnote-48" rel="footnote">48</a></sup> However, when Campbell and others argued for using the same method to construct Christian doctrine, they were overlooking the vast differences between natural sciences and biblical hermeneutics. Notwithstanding the best efforts of Joseph Smith,<sup id="ref-footnote-49"><a href="#footnote-49" rel="footnote">49</a></sup> the biblical "data set" is static and cannot be augmented through experimentation. Moreover, "the facts" in the case of a scientific data set typically involve precise measurement of numerical quantities (e.g., temperature, volume, etc.) With good instrumentation, measurement error will be negligible. Assembling "the facts" from the Bible is a far thornier affair: it entails translating and interpreting ancient texts. Translation is not just a matter of "common sense"; it is a complex, multi-faceted task. It requires, <i>inter alia</i>, reconstructing the original text as closely as possible (textual criticism), choosing the degree of <a href="https://www.tlctranslation.com/translation-theory-dynamic-and-formal-equivalence/" target="_blank">formal or dynamic equivalence</a> desired, resolving syntactic and semantic ambiguities, and adding punctuation. Translation already entails a degree of interpretation, but even exegetes who agree on the translation of a text may differ radically on its meaning and theological significance. In short, Scripture is nothing like a simple set of "facts" on which induction can be performed. Hence, the Baconian hermeneutic greatly exaggerates interpreters' objectivity and tempts them to equate their own disputable opinions with "the facts." As Allen summarises:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>[James Lamar] seems never to have been struck by the deep irony that marked the movement almost from its inception—the irony of claiming to overturn all human traditions and interpretive schemes while at the same time being wedded to an empirical theological method drawn from early Enlightenment thought. By virtually denying the necessity of human interpretation and the inevitable impact of extra-biblical ideas and traditions, the Disciples allowed their interpretive traditions to become all the more entrenched for being unrecognized.<sup id="ref-footnote-50"><a href="#footnote-50" rel="footnote">50</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> <b>6.3. The Irony of "Restoring" Ancient Christianity Using Enlightenment-Era Philosophy</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The third problem is even more fundamental. Baconianism is rooted in the philosophy of Bacon in the 17th century and Reid in the 18th. How could modern philosophy restore primitive Christianity? Or how could the apostolic order be recovered using a hermeneutic that post-dates the apostles by over 1500 years?<sup id="ref-footnote-51"><a href="#footnote-51" rel="footnote">51</a></sup> The question answers itself. And if the Baconian approach entails "calling Bible things by Bible names," what is the Bible's name for the Baconian method? Is it not an extrabiblical imposition from human philosophy—the very sort of thing that "Bible only" Protestants seek to abolish from theology?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A defender of Baconianism might respond that the method need not be explained in Scripture because it is accessible to all by common sense. However, if that were the case, we should expect it to have been used in the early church (unless common sense is a modern invention!) Let us look at the thought of Irenaeus of Lyons (writing c. 180 A.D.) as a test case. Irenaeus is a good example because he is one of the Church's earliest "biblical theologians." Notably, he is the earliest extant writer to use the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" to refer to portions of the biblical canon and to defend four as the complete number of canonical gospels.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If Irenaeus were Baconian in his hermeneutic, we would expect him to construct his theology by assembling "facts"—various statements in Scripture—and combining them inductively into doctrines. To use John Thomas' language, we would expect him to be independent of any dogmatic traditions or ecclesiastical authority and to rely only on what is demonstrable directly from Scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div>Instead, Irenaeus introduces his famous summary of Christian doctrine, the rule of faith, thus: "The church, dispersed throughout the world to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples the faith" (<i>Against Heresies </i>1.10.1).<sup id="ref-footnote-52"><a href="#footnote-52" rel="footnote">52</a></sup> Similarly, in his other surviving work, <i>Proof of the Apostolic Preaching</i>, he introduces the Christian faith with the words, "So, faith procures this for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us."<sup id="ref-footnote-53"><a href="#footnote-53" rel="footnote">53</a></sup> Thus Irenaeus regards "the elders, disciples of the apostles" as an authoritative source of doctrine.</div><div><br /></div><div>Opposing the Gnostic heretics, Irenaeus explains in what the true Gnosis (knowledge) consists:</div><div><blockquote>This is true Gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction; a reading without falsification and, in conformity with the scriptures, an interpretation that is legitimate, careful, without danger or blasphemy. (<i>Against Heresies, </i>4.33.8)</blockquote></div><div>Notice that Irenaeus stresses the importance of the Scriptures and their correct interpretation, but in the same breath acknowledges the importance of apostolic succession for preserving the teaching of the apostles in the Church. Hence, once can recognise heretics precisely by their independence from ecclesiastical authority:</div><div><blockquote>This is why one must hear the presbyters who are in the church, those who have the succession from the apostles, as we have shown, and with the succession in the episcopate have received the sure spiritual gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. As for all the others who are separate from the original succession, in whatever place they gather, they are suspect. They are heretics with false doctrine or schismatics full of pride and audacity and self-willed or, again, hypocrites looking only for gain and vainglory. (<i>Against Heresies, </i>4.26.2)</blockquote></div><div>These few quotations suffice to show that the Baconian hermeneutic is at odds with the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. One might argue that Irenaeus had already apostatised from biblical truth, despite being only two degrees separated from the apostles (in his youth he heard Polycarp teach, who was taught by John).<sup id="ref-footnote-54"><a href="#footnote-54" rel="footnote">54</a></sup> But if this were the case, what evidence can be brought forth to show that other early Christian writers sought to practice a Baconian theological method?</div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> 6.4. Other Problems with John Thomas' Antihermeneutic</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The above criticisms apply to John Thomas to the extent that he, too, applied the Baconian method. Thomas, however, merits further criticism for what we have termed his antihermeneutic. Thomas scoffed at "hermeneutics" and "logic" and conflated his own philosophical and methodological presuppositions with "common sense." In his optimism for common sense, Thomas was a man of his times. It was nonetheless breathtakingly naïve for Thomas to dismiss logic and hermeneutics, as though he were not using them himself. Here is a certainty: <i>every theologian uses logic and hermeneutics</i>, which are simply the theory and method of reasoning and interpretation respectively. The one who denies using them merely surrenders much of his capacity for intellectual self-examination and correction. Forthrightness about one's methods and presuppositions is far better than hiding behind the nebulous rule of "common sense."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">One person's common sense differs from her neighbour's; Thomas himself wrote (cited earlier) that common sense was "common only to the few." He adds other virtues that enhance the interpreter's chances of success, such as independence, humility, teachableness, and diligence. As correct interpretation is made a function of personal virtues rather than methods and rules of interpretation, objectivity recedes further. Are we sinful human beings well qualified to judge the humility, teachableness, and diligence of ourselves and others? It is no surprise that subsequent Christadelphian writers extolled John Thomas' intellectual virtues and suggested that a restoration of apostolic truth probably would not have happened but for his remarkable attributes.<sup id="ref-footnote-55"><a href="#footnote-55" rel="footnote">55</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The notion that "independence" is a virtue in theologians is, as noted above, totally at odds with the worldview of early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, being instead a characteristic Irenaeus assigns to the heretics he opposes. Indeed, independence and humility seem to be self-contradictory, since the virtue of humility entails submission to legitimate authority, including ecclesiastical (see, e.g., Heb. 13:17). As parents, if our children disregard our rules and make up their own, do we reward them for "independence" or discipline them for disobedience?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit7" name="osec7">7. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this writer's experience, John Thomas' antihermeneutic legacy lives on in that Christadelphians generally show little interest in, or even acknowledgment of, their movement's intellectual roots. Very little "critical history" of Christadelphian origins has emerged from within the movement;<sup id="ref-footnote-56"><a href="#footnote-56" rel="footnote">56</a></sup> Christadelphian historiography has been largely hagiographical. This stands in marked contrast to the wider Stone-Campbell tradition, which has produced voluminous critical research into its own intellectual origins.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Regardless of whether one believes that the Christadelphian belief system is true or not, it does not help anyone when the philosophical presuppositions and hermeneutical methods that gave rise to it go unrecognised and continue to be conflated, in early-19th-century fashion, with "common sense." There is a sector of Christadelphians who have, in recent years, sought to bring Christadelphian theology into conversation with contemporary biblical scholarship. Hopefully, this article may inspire similar scholarly engagement in the matter of Christadelphian history. Even if not, I hope it contributes to the reader's understanding of the Christadelphian movement.</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Douglas A. Foster, <i>Alexander Campbell </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 59-60.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> The term "hermeneutics" refers to the theory and methods of interpretation of texts, especially the Bible.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Barry Gower, <i>Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction</i> (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997), 41. The description of Bacon's method here is largely based on Gower.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Gower, <i>Scientific Method</i>, 52.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Richard M. Tristano, <i>The Origins of the Restoration Movement: An Intellectual History </i>(Atlanta: Glenmary Research Center, 1998), 20-21.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Foster, <i>Alexander Campbell,</i> 36-37</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Tristano, <i>Origins of the Restoration Movement</i>, 20-21.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Tristano, <i>Origins of the Restoration Movement</i>, 21</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Tristano, <i>Origins of the Restoration Movement</i>, 21</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> For those unfamiliar with the term, "antebellum" means "before the war" and refers here to the decades that preceded the American Civil War (1861-65).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Mark A. Noll, "Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought," <i>American Quarterly 37</i> (1985): 233.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> C. Leonard Allen, "Baconianism and the Bible in the Disciples of Christ: James S. Lamar and 'The Organon of Scripture,'" <i>Church History 55 </i>(1986): 67.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Noll, "Common Sense Traditions," 234.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> <i>A Connected View of the Principles and Rules by which the Living Oracles May Be Intelligibly and Certainly Interpreted</i> (Bethany, VA: M'Vay & Ewing, 1835), 106.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> <i>The Christian System in Reference to the Union of Christians and a Restoration of Primitive Christianity as Plead in the Current Reformation</i> (Pittsburgh: Forrester & Campbell, 1840), 125.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Stephen Waers, "Common Sense Regeneration: Alexander Campbell on Regeneration, Conversion, and the Work of the Holy Spirit," <i>Harvard Theological Review 109 </i>(2016): 612.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> "Their writings have done more for the world than all the rhetoricians of two thousand years" (<i>The Millennial Harbinger 5 </i>[1834]: 622); "History records no more illustrious names than those of Bacon, Locke, and Newton" (<i>The Millennial Harbinger 7</i> [1836], 247).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> <i>The Christian Baptist 6 </i>(1828): 227. Similarly, "Since the days of Bacon our scientific men have adopted the practical and truly scientific mode...We plead for the same principle in the contemplation of religious truth... By inducing matter by every process to give out its qualities, and to deduce nothing from hypothesis; so religious truth is to be deduced from the revelation which the deity has been pleased to give to man" ("Speculation in Religion," <i>The Christian Baptist 4 </i>[1827]: 241).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Foster, <i>Alexander Campbell</i>, 38. Allen concurs: "The evidence is strong that Alexander Campbell appropriated Scottish Baconianism to a considerable degree and employed it in the service of his primitivist theology" ("Baconianism and the Bible," 69).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> "The Bible is a book of facts, not of opinions, theories, abstract generalities, nor of verbal definitions." (<i>The Christian System</i>, 18).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> "Baconianism and the Bible," 68-70.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> <i>The Organon of Scripture, Or, The Inductive Method of Biblical Interpretation </i>(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co, 1860).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> Lamar, <i>The Organon of Scripture</i>, 24; cf. Allen, "Baconianism and the Bible," 73.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> Lamar, <i>The Organon of Scripture</i>, 25.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> Lamar, <i>The Organon of Scripture</i>, 130-31.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> The name changed to <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come </i>from 1851. The periodical was discontinued due to the American Civil War and was not reprised thereafter.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> "Observations on the Apocalypse," <i>The Apostolic Advocate 1 </i>(1834): 197.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> For instance, in 1852, Thomas favourably quotes another British physician's views on the subject of "the investigation of the truth"; that physician was advocating that the Baconian inductive method be applied in biblical interpretation, as in natural science, so that the uniformity of belief enjoyed in science would also be enjoyed in religion ("The Bible Doctrine concerning the Tempter Considered, No. 1," <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come 2 </i>[1852]: np. The quotation is from an unpaginated transcription available <a href="https://christadelphianvault.net/dist/index.php?r=/download&path=L0JpYmxlRG9jcy9NYWdhemluZXMvVGhlIEhlcmFsZCBvZiB0aGUgS2luZ2RvbSBhbmQgQWdlIHRvIENvbWUgKEpUKS9IZXJhbGQgSmFuMTg1MSB0aHJvdWdoIEZlYjE4NTQgLSBUZXh0LnBkZg%3D%3D" target="_blank">here</a>.). In 1858, Thomas includes the following "selection" in his periodical: "Our duty in reference to knowledge in general is to observe facts, rather than to form hypotheses; to go on, as Bacon teaches, in the modest accumulation of positive data, aware that there are eternal truths, whatever may come of your opinions" (<i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come 8</i> [1858]: 47).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> <i>The Christian System</i>, 5-6, 127.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> "When I begin to think of my debts of thought, I see an immense crowd of claimants...Euclid, and Locke, and Bacon, and Newton, and ten thousand others cast an eye upon me." ("Letter to William Jones," <i>The Millennial Harbinger 6</i> [1835]: 304.)</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> "It should be noted here that Campbell often inveighed against the use of any theories, philosophical or otherwise, when interpreting scripture. Campbell did not seem to lump his use of SCSP into this category of theorization. For him, the SCSP understanding of the human mind was self-evident and therefore not theoretical or speculative. Perhaps we could say that he was unable to see beyond its horizons. Campbell thought that Francis Bacon corrected the fanciful speculations into which philosophy had declined prior to his time. Because Bacon’s inductive method was so important to SCSP, it is likely that Campbell saw his adoption of SCSP as combatting speculation and theorization"("Common Sense Regeneration," 613 n. 8).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come 3 </i>(1853): np. The quotation is from an unpaginated transcription available <a href="https://christadelphianvault.net/dist/index.php?r=/download&path=L0JpYmxlRG9jcy9NYWdhemluZXMvVGhlIEhlcmFsZCBvZiB0aGUgS2luZ2RvbSBhbmQgQWdlIHRvIENvbWUgKEpUKS9IZXJhbGQgSmFuMTg1MSB0aHJvdWdoIEZlYjE4NTQgLSBUZXh0LnBkZg%3D%3D" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-33"><a href="#ref-footnote-33">33</a> <i>Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse</i>, 3 vols. (Adelaide: Logos, originally published 1861), 1:198.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-34"><a href="#ref-footnote-34">34</a> For instance, at the end of his above-mentioned series on Isaiah, where he argues that it foretells contemporary political events involving Russia, he writes, "Paul gloried in his weakness; and so do we. If one so weak as our stupid self can make 'the most difficult passage of Isaiah' so intelligible and plain, how blind must they be, who with all their classical, theological, hermeneutic, erudition, and 'logic,' can give no better sense to this portion of the word than the translators so often named in this! So true is it, that 'God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.'" <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come 3 </i>(1853): np. The quotation is from an unpaginated transcription available <a href="https://christadelphianvault.net/dist/index.php?r=/download&path=L0JpYmxlRG9jcy9NYWdhemluZXMvVGhlIEhlcmFsZCBvZiB0aGUgS2luZ2RvbSBhbmQgQWdlIHRvIENvbWUgKEpUKS9IZXJhbGQgSmFuMTg1MSB0aHJvdWdoIEZlYjE4NTQgLSBUZXh0LnBkZg%3D%3D" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-35"><a href="#ref-footnote-35">35</a> "Scotto-Campbellism Reviewed," <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come 10</i> (1860): 60.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-36"><a href="#ref-footnote-36">36</a> This term has been used elsewhere for the hermeneutic of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), women's rights activist and author of <i>The Woman's Bible</i>, where she "she calls on her readers to 'be guided by their own unassisted common sense' (2:159) and to read the 'unvarnished texts' of the Scriptures 'in plain English' (1:8) and 'in harmony with science, common sense, and the experience of mankind in natural laws' (1:20)" (Carolyn A. Haynes, <i>Divine Destiny: Gender and Race in Nineteenth-Century Protestantism</i> [Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1998], 146). Haynes comments, "Such an exegetical methodology (or antimethodology) is in keeping with the Common Sense school and with fundamentalist hermeneutical practices."
</li><li class="footnote" id="footnote-37"><a href="#ref-footnote-37">37</a> <i>Elpis Israel </i>(Findon: Logos Publications, 1866/2000), 3.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-38"><a href="#ref-footnote-38">38</a> <i>Elpis Israel</i>, 4.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-39"><a href="#ref-footnote-39">39</a> <i>Elpis Israel</i>, 5, 8.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-40"><a href="#ref-footnote-40">40</a> <i>Elpis Israel</i>, 5-6.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-41"><a href="#ref-footnote-41">41</a> <i>Elpis Israel</i>, 6, 8-9.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-42"><a href="#ref-footnote-42">42</a> <i>Eureka</i>, 1:341. The ellipsis reads, "perfectly unacquainted with all the learned lore of Ammonius." In context, Thomas is criticising Origen's reliance on the Neoplatonist philosopher Ammonius in his theological method. However, the broader question obtained by removing this ellipsis certainly characterises Thomas' approach to Scripture in general.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-43"><a href="#ref-footnote-43">43</a> "A Few First Principles of Common Sense," <i>Apostolic Advocate 2 </i>(1835): 229.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-44"><a href="#ref-footnote-44">44</a> Foster, <i>Alexander Campbell</i>, 254.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-45"><a href="#ref-footnote-45">45</a> Allen, "Baconianism and the Bible," 80.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-46"><a href="#ref-footnote-46">46</a> Foster, <i>Alexander Campbell</i>, 151-272. Conflicts of a doctrinal nature involving Campbell included the clash with John Thomas over "re-immersion" and the immortality of the soul, clashes with Barton W. Stone over the Trinity and Christology, and conflict with a minister named Jesse B. Ferguson over universalism and spiritualism. The conflicts with Thomas and Ferguson ended with schisms.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-47"><a href="#ref-footnote-47">47</a> "Baconianism and the Bible," 79.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-48"><a href="#ref-footnote-48">48</a> It should be noted, however, that Baconian inductivism has been out of favour since the later 19th century even as a scientific method.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-49"><a href="#ref-footnote-49">49</a> The founder of the Latter-Day Saints movement ("Mormons").</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-50"><a href="#ref-footnote-50">50</a> "Baconianism and the Bible," 79.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-51"><a href="#ref-footnote-51">51</a> One might argue that the New Testament writers themselves used an anachronistic hermeneutic in that they often interpreted the Old Testament Christologically and not according to the grammatical-historical sense. However, the early church read the Scriptures Christologically because its worldview had been radically realigned by the Christ-event. Did the Bacon-event really warrant another hermeneutical revolution?.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-52"><a href="#ref-footnote-52">52</a> All translations from <i>Against Heresies </i>are taken from Robert M. Grant, <i>Irenaeus of Lyons </i>(London: Routledge, 1997).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-53"><a href="#ref-footnote-53">53</a> John Behr, <i>On the Apostolic Preaching: Translated and with an Introduction </i>(Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997), 42.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-54"><a href="#ref-footnote-54">54</a> A reader interested in exploring the early Church Fathers further may wish to consult works such Jimmy Akin's <i>The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church</i> (El Cajon: Catholic Answers Press, 2010) or (for a more academic treatment) William A. Jurgens, <i>The Faith of the Early Fathers </i>(3 vols; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-55"><a href="#ref-footnote-55">55</a> "Dr Thomas was fitted by natural qualification for the great work achieved by his hand. His intellect was a fine balance between perception and reflection, adapting him for full and accurate observation and correct reasoning, while a scientific education brought out those powers to the fullest advantage... The Doctor was a remarkable man, and was the instrument of a remarkable work, which required strongly-marked characteristics for its accomplishment... firstly, a clear, well-balanced, scientific intellect, and a non-emotional, executive nature, enabling him to reason accurately, and perceive and embrace conclusions in the teeth of prejudice and sentiment; secondly, self-reliance and an independence almost to the point of eccentricity, disposing him to think and act without reference to any second person, and if need be, in opposition to friend as well as foe; thirdly, a predominating conscientiousness impelling him in the direction of right and duty; and fourthly, great boldness and fluency of speech which qualified him for the enunciation of the truth discovered in the face of the world in arms... To a man of different characteristics, the work would probably have been impossible. Dr. Thomas possessed a combination of traits that enabled him to persevere in his course whatever difficulties had to be faced... such, in brief, is the history of that application of his mental powers to Scripture study and polemics which, in the wisdom of God, has uncovered the oracles of divine truth from the mass of ignorance and misinterpretation which for centuries overlaid and obscured them'" (Robert Roberts, <i>Dr Thomas: His Life and Work </i>(<a href="https://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Cornerstones/Pioneers/Life/toc.html" target="_blank">web version</a>); "The peculiar mental and moral organisation of Dr. Thomas admirably fitted him for the work he accomplished. His sterling honesty, great faith, resolute will, utter disregard of human opinion, and what seemed a reckless independence of leadership of men, enabled him to do a work that would have failed under other conditions" (L. B. Welch, "The Recovered Truth in the Latter Days," <i>The Christadelphian 31 </i>[1894]: 144-48).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-56"><a href="#ref-footnote-56">56</a> A site search of the online archives of two Christadelphian magazines (<i>The Christadelphian Tidings </i>and <i>Testimony</i>) yields no content devoted to the influence of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy or Baconianism on Christadelphian origins.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-4875278616386032512021-11-23T01:11:00.024+02:002021-11-23T21:27:20.675+02:00The Parts of John's Prologue that Unitarians Neglect<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Despite being a Catholic and a Trinitarian myself, I'm a regular listener of unitarian apologist Prof. Dale Tuggy's <i>trinities </i>podcast. As someone who has written a fair bit on the Prologue of John, I was keenly interested to listen to his latest episode, <i><a href="https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-338-what-john-1-meant/" target="_blank">What John 1 Meant</a></i>. This was an edited version of a talk Tuggy gave at the 2021 Unitarian Christian Alliance conference.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">At the beginning of the talk, Tuggy read John 1:1-18 from the NRSV. This—together with the episode's title and 76-minute length—made very hopeful that he was going to do something that I seldom see/hear/read unitarians do when discussing this text: <i>offer careful exegesis of the whole Prologue</i>. For, as I wrote a few months ago in my <a href="http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/Farrar_Review_and_Response_Buzzard_Hunting_Trinity_07.06.2021.pdf" target="_blank">in-depth review</a> of Buzzard and Hunting's polemical work, <i>The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound </i>(p. 30), there are portions of this passage that unitarian exegetes tend to neglect when arguing for a particular meaning of the Word (<i>ho logos</i>). I refer specifically to vv. 5-13 and 14c-18. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Alas, I was to be disappointed once again. Tuggy lavishes time upon John 1:1-4 and 1:14ab and pre-Christian parallels to the language of both. As for the other parts? Verse 5 is discussed briefly in connection with 1-4. He states that he is going to skip vv. 6-9. Verses 10-11 then receive a brief cameo, with 12-13 then passed over in silence to arrive at v. 14. Even within this verse, the first two clauses ("And the Word became flesh and lived among us") command far more attention than the third. As he begins to wrap up, Tuggy announces that there isn't time to discuss vv. 15-18, but that it does not matter, as these verses contain no difficulties for unitarians. He does provide the briefest aside on what he thinks v. 15 means (spoiler alert: "he was before me" does not indicate that he existed before me), and then gives his own paraphrase of the entire Prologue, including the verses he's skipped over. (He also, on a couple of occasions, voices his support for the minority textual view that 1:18 calls Jesus <i>monogenēs huios </i>rather than <i>monogenēs theos</i>.)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Why should it be concerning or frustrating that a 76-minute talk on "What John 1[:1-18] Meant" (in the Christological sense) dedicates almost no airtime to vv. 5-13 and 14c-18? After all, if the main difficulty of John's Prologue is to correctly interpret the term <i>ho logos</i>, shouldn't we focus on the verses that use this term? Well, context is king, as they say. If John 1:1-18 is a literary unit within John's Gospel, surely we cannot neglect any part thereof if we hope to understand the whole.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If all we had in the Prologue were John 1:1-4 and 14ab, our efforts to identify who or what the Word is might devolve into a Sisyphean struggle of opinioneering. Fortunately, those other, sometimes neglected parts enable us to settle the matter decisively.</div>
<div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div id="demo-1">I have written in some detail about these verses in my article <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2020/02/jesus-christ-in-prologue-of-john-word.html" target="_blank">Jesus Christ in the Prologue of John: The Word Per Se, or the Word Made Flesh Only?</a> </i>(see also my <a href="http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/Farrar_Review_and_Response_Buzzard_Hunting_Trinity_07.06.2021.pdf" target="_blank">review of Buzzard & Hunting</a>, pp. 28-30), so I will just give a bullet-point overview of the exegetical arguments from the "other verses" of the Prologue.</div><div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div id="demo-1">First, concerning 1:5-13,</div><div id="demo-1"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The light" (<i>to phōs</i>) is—like <i>ho logos—</i>an abstract noun that can easily be used—and probably is, in vv. 4-5—in a purely abstract sense (and there was little Jewish precedent for regarding it as personal.) Nevertheless, it is unmistakable that from v. 7 onward, <i>to phōs </i>refers to a person. Otherwise, the author's clarification about John, "He was not the light," is superfluous, even absurd.</li><li>This person, the True Light, is in view throughout vv. 9-12, where we learn that the True Light is identical with the Word (from the parallels between 1:3a and 1:10b and between 1:7b and 1:15a) even as it remains obvious that the True Light is a person (from the words "believe in his name," amongst others). The Word and Light imagery are both drawn ultimately from Genesis 1.</li><li>The True Light imagery gives no idea of an ontological transition from one thing (the pre-existent Word) to another (the man Jesus). The language is seamless: he who was <i>in </i>the world is he through whom the world <i>came to be</i>. The transition is a spatial one: he comes into the world, to his own.</li><li>If any reader were in doubt at this point as to which person the True Light (= the Word) is, they could not remain so after reading the rest of the Gospel, which is replete with parallels to 1:8-12:</li><ul><li>"He was not the light" (1:8a) = "I am not the Christ" (1:20; 3:28)</li><li>"the True Light" (1:9a) = "I am...the Truth" (14:6); "I am the Light of the world" (8:12; 9:5)</li><li>The light "was coming into the world" (1:9b) = "I came into the world as light" (12:46); "you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world" (11:27); "I...have come into the world" (16:28; 18:37)</li><li>"He was in the world" (1:10a) = "I am in the world" (9:5); "now I will no longer be in the world" (17:11)</li><li>"He came to his own" (1:11a) = "He loved his own in the world" (13:1)</li><li>"His own did not receive him" (1:11b) = "You do not receive me" (5:43); "Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me" (18:35)</li><li>"But to those who did receive him" (1:12a) = "Whoever does receive his testimony..." (3:32-33)</li><li>"he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe" (1:12ab) = "believe in the light, so that you may become children of the light" (12:36)</li><li>"believe in his name" (1:12b) = "many began to believe in his name" (2:23); "believed in the name of the only Son of God" (3:18)</li></ul></ul></div><div id="demo-1">Second, concerning 1:14c-18,</div><div id="demo-1"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The Word" (<i>ho logos</i>)<i> </i>is the referent throughout vv. 14-16. This is often overlooked because the statements from 14c-16 are clearly also statements about Jesus Christ:</li><ul><li>1:14c equates the Word's glory with "glory as of the Father's only Son"</li><li>1:15a quotes John's testimony about the Word using the same words John will proclaim about Jesus in 1:30</li><li>1:16a speaks of the Word's fullness and grace, which is linked via the conjunction <i>hoti </i>to a statement about grace coming through Jesus Christ in v. 17</li></ul><li>But the syntax is unambiguous: the three occurrences of the pronoun <i>autos </i>in vv. 14c ("we saw <i>his </i>glory"), 15a ("John testified about <i>him</i>") and 16a ("From <i>his</i> fullness we have all received") all have <i>ho logos </i>in 14a as their antecedent.</li><li>Thus, it is not that we have one statement about the Word, "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us," followed by other statements about the man who figuratively embodies the Word. The syntax disallows such a reading. Rather, "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" is one statement about the Word <i>per se </i>that is followed by several other statements about the Word <i>per se</i>.</li><li>If these statements about the Word <i>per se </i>are also statements about Jesus Christ, it follows inexorably that Jesus Christ is the Word <i>per se</i>.</li><li>Again, the statements about the Word in 1:14c-16 have parallels elsewhere in the Gospel.</li><ul><li>"We have seen his glory" (1:14c) = "Jesus...so revealed his glory" (2:11); "Isaiah...saw his glory" (12:41)</li><li>"the only begotten of the Father" (1:14c) = "the only begotten God/Son" (1:18); "only begotten Son" (3:16, 18)</li><li>"he was before me" (1:15e; cf. 1:30) = "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1); "What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (6:62); "Before Abraham was, I am" (8:58); "the glory that I had with you before the world was" (17:5)</li></ul><li>1:18 causes some difficulties for unitarians if, as the UBS committee considered "almost certain" (B rating), the correct reading is <i>monogen<i style="text-align: justify;">ēs</i> theos. </i>It is not just that there would then be <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2017/01/jesus-son-of-god-god-son-or-both.html" target="_blank">biblical warrant for the much-maligned phrase "God the Son."</a> It is also that this would be an instance of the literary technique of <i>inclusio</i>,<i> </i>by which the Prologue is deliberately bookended by references to someone other than the Father as <i>theos</i>. The implication is that the one called <i>theos </i>in 1:1 is the one called <i>theos </i>in 1:18, thus reinforcing that the Word = the Son.</li></ul></div><div id="demo-1">Given the abundant exegetical data concerning the identity of the Word in John 1:5-13 and 14c-18, can the reader blame me for feeling exasperated when a unitarian apologist devotes an hour-long lecture on John's Prologue to verses 1-4 and 14ab, giving only cursory attention to the rest of the material?</div>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-11532038862971767182021-09-26T19:34:00.033+02:002021-09-26T19:43:33.263+02:00Christian Submission to Governing Authorities in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec1" name="otit1">1. Submission to Authority as a Central Moral Imperative in the New Testament</a></b></div><div style="width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec2" name="otit2">2. What Does Submission to Authority Entail?</a></b></div><div style="width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec3" name="otit3">3. "Render to Caesar": The Authority of the State</a></b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec4" name="otit4">4. Exceptional Cases</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec5" name="otit5">5. The Case of COVID-19 Regulations</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec51" name="otit51">5.1. Mask Mandates</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec52" name="otit52">5.2. Vaccine Regulations</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> <a href="#osec53" name="otit53">5.3. Restrictions on Social Gatherings</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec6" name="otit6">6. Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this article, we look at the Christian's obligation to submit to governing authorities, particularly in the context of government regulations put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit1" name="osec1">1. Submission to Authority as a Central Moral Imperative in the New Testament</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the sections of certain New Testament epistles that provide instructions on the believer's obligations within the household, a central theme is <i>submission to authority</i>. In Ephesians 5-6, for instance, the general principle "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (v. 21) is followed by specific contexts in which subjection is required:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>"Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord...Children, obey your parents in the Lord...Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Eph. 5:22, 6:1, 6:5)<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> </blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Colossians follows much the same template: </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord... Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is your acceptable duty in the Lord... Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything" (Col. 3:18-22)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Each of these three relationships is depicted as an authority structure, with the "lower" party (wife/child/slave) obliged to submit to or obey the "higher" party (husband/parents/master). To be sure, obligations are also placed on the "higher" party, but these obligations do not include subjection or obedience; they largely have to do with correct use of the authority vested in them. Importantly, however, neither of these passages makes the "lower" party's obligation of subjection/obedience contingent on the goodness of the "higher" party. The inspired author probably would have granted that exceptional circumstances might arise in each of these relationships in which the obligation did not apply (e.g., a parent ordering a child to steal for them). However, the writer apparently did not consider such exceptions common enough even to mention.</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Moreover, in a third such passage, the writer explicitly enjoins subjection/obedience even when the "higher" party is <i>not </i>good (and need we add that slavery is an intrinsically unjust institution!) This passage is in 1 Peter 2-3, and rather than addressing obligations within the household, it speaks to the principle, "Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles [i.e., unbelievers], so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge." (1 Pet. 2:12). How is this principle to be applied? Again, by submitting to authority:</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>"For the Lord’s sake <i>be subject to</i> every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right... Slaves, <i>be subject to</i> your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh... Wives, in the same way, <i>be subject to </i>your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct" (1 Peter 2:13, 2:18, 3:1).<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This text introduces a new authority hierarchy not mentioned in Ephesians and Colossians (which only focus on the household level): civilian/government. It is this obligation to "be subject to every human institution" that concerns us here. 1 Peter does not, as with masters and husbands, add a proviso to obey "even those who are harsh/do not obey the word." This is obviously <i>not </i>because the writer believes one must only obey good government officials. Rather, it goes without saying that government officials are no paragons of virtue. Remember, this letter was written in the age of emperors like Caligula (who had people killed for fun and made his horse a priest), Nero (who used Christians as garden torches and had Peter and Paul executed), and Titus (who sacked the holy city of Jerusalem and burned the temple).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The overall picture that emerges from these epistles is clear. These apostolic writers expect their charges to exercise subjection and obedience to their social superiors. This was not to be done only when or because those superiors treated them justly. Instead, the Christian obligation to submit to authority was to bear witness to Christians' submission to the Lord as the true Master from whom all earthly authorities received their power.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit2" name="osec2">2. What Does Submission to Authority Entail?</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It is perhaps obvious, but needs to be emphasised, that submission to a higher authority entails not only granting respect to that authority and acknowledging its legitimacy, but also <i>obeying its orders</i>, and not only when one likes them! Should a child be considered obedient if she obeys only the parental rules that she likes? Would a slave be considered obedient if he obeyed only those instructions from the master that seemed wise and reasonable? The letter 1 Timothy makes a similar point when it observes that "law does not exist for the righteous, but for the lawless and insubordinate" (1 Tim. 1:9, my translation). The Greek word translated "insubordinate" here is <i>anhypotaktos</i>, a negative cognate of the verb translated "be subject to" used in 1 Peter 2-3 and elsewhere.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If an authority provided a <i>suggestion</i> and we thought it wise, we might follow it; but this would not be submission or obedience. The real test of submission or obedience is whether one follows instructions from the authority <i>even when one disagrees with them</i>. And it is precisely because some are disinclined to do this that laws (with penalties for disobedience attached) are required.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#otit3" name="osec3">3. "Render to Caesar": The Authority of the State</a></b></div><div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Books of the Old Testament written during or after the exile of Israel and Judah, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, contain much precedent for submitting to governing authorities, including those of idolatrous Gentile powers. This pattern continues in the New Testament, with explicit instructions to this effect given not only in 1 Peter 2:13-14 (discussed above), but in several other passages.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Memorably, when some opponents tried to ensnare Jesus with a question about paying tax to Caesar, he responded, "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God" (Mark 12:17 NABRE). Jesus is under no illusion that the imperial government (under Tiberius during his ministry; probably under Nero when Mark wrote his Gospel) was a just system that would use tax revenues effectively for the common good. Some of it, yes; other funds might be used to build a temple to Jupiter, or pay the salaries of the legions that patrolled (and later sacked) Jerusalem. Yet Jesus does not vacillate on these grounds; he affirms that Caesar has—for the present—a legitimate domain of God-given authority in the land and that the Jews are obliged to submit to it.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Paul goes into more detail about the believer's obligations to the government in Romans 13 (see also Titus 3:1):</div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7)</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">As in 1 Peter 2:13-14, there is a blanket commandment to be subject to the governing authorities, and Paul goes on to justify the commandment by arguing that all governing authorities that exist have their power from God and exist for God's purposes, namely to promote the common good.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit4" name="osec4">4. Exceptional Cases</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Observe that in none of the New Testament passages that command believers to "be subject to" or "obey" some authority is there a condition attached, such as "provided that their decision and orders are reasonable and agreeable." This shows that exceptions to the "submit to authority" ethic are <i>rare </i>(indeed, as already stated, one is only really submitting to an authority when one obeys orders <i>despite disagreeing with them</i>). Nevertheless, exceptions do exist. In the case of governing authorities, we have several biblical examples. These include Daniel's friends' refusal to bow down to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3), Daniel's refusal to stop petitioning God (Daniel 6), and the apostles' disobedience of the Sanhedrin's order to stop teaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 4-5). The principle is simple: when one's obligations to government contradict one's obligations to God, God's authority trumps Caesar's (Acts 5:29). </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Importantly, though, exceptions are precisely that. They are not a loophole allowing Christians to disobey laws or regulations that they deem to be, or in fact are, unreasonable. The Christian must disobey laws or regulations when obeying them would directly contravene the law of God—for instance, an order to worship an idol or stop praying to God (as in Daniel) or to stop preaching the gospel (as in Acts). Or an order to take innocent life (e.g., a doctor who is compelled by law to perform abortions.) But a Christian who disobeys laws and regulations simply because s/he thinks they are ill-advised or unscientific or counterproductive is in fact sinning, by disobeying God's commandment to be subject to governing authorities.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit5" name="osec5">5. The Case of COVID-19 Regulations</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Let us apply the moral principles developed above to the concrete and globally relevant case of regulations that governments have introduced over the past 18 months in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We will deal with three categories of regulations: mask mandates, vaccine regulations, and restrictions on social gatherings.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Before doing so, we must acknowledge that most of the world's Christians today live under governments that are far better, in many respects, to the Roman government that existed at the time of the apostles. Many Christians live in democratic countries, where the people can influence government decisions and hold government authorities accountable. Most such countries have constitutions that uphold human rights and freedoms—above all the right to life—and offer a judicial recourse for challenging unjust laws, regulations, and decisions by government. Thus, while the Christian cannot disobey the law (apart from the rare exceptions discussed above), s/he does have recourses for inducing positive change in the government and its laws.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, the Roman government perceived very little responsibility in the area of public health. This was the domain of private physicians (and religious healers), who of course understood relatively very little about the human body or illness. Today, public health is a major priority for virtually all governments, and most of these governments rely on the latest scientific research to guide law and policy. Therefore, while no government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been perfect, Christians today have a lot to be grateful for! Thankfully, all of the kinds of regulations discussed below are intended by governments to <i>protect human life</i>—a bedrock Christian value.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">An <i>a fortiori </i>argument therefore applies. If the apostles commanded Christians to be subject to even unjust human authorities (e.g., unbelieving husbands, harsh slave masters, and cruel Roman emperors), how much more must Christians today be subject to governments as they seek to protect the population from a pandemic? At any rate, even if we consider today's governments to be harsh or unjust in their handling of the pandemic, this does <i>not </i>justify disobedience or disrespect of those governments.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit51" name="osec51">5.1. Mask Mandates</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">This issue can be treated briefly and decisively. There is nothing about a requirement to wear a cloth mask in public spaces that in any conceivable way violates any law of God. Christians must therefore comply cheerfully with all mask mandates. Any Christian who deliberately violates a mask mandate, or encourages others to do so, is rebelling against their sacred Christian duty to submit to governing authorities. Even if one believes that masks are ineffective at preventing transmission, or that a mask mandate seems unnecessary due to a drop in local transmission rates, this does not justify a contravention of government regulations. For Christians to violate or rail against mask mandates frankly makes a mockery of the overriding principle in 1 Peter 2:12. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit52" name="osec52">5.2. Vaccine Regulations</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Like mask wearing, coronavirus vaccines are a measure intended to protect human life from COVID-19. Like masks, they apply at the individual level. In most countries, certain COVID-19 vaccines have been approved by government authorities for use by the general public. Public health officials have then launched campaigns that <i>encourage</i>, but do not <i>compel</i>, members of the public to be vaccinated. Thus, in most jurisdictions it is a matter of free prudential judgment whether a person receives a vaccine. It is consequently not an act of insubordination to government <i>per se </i>to decline to be vaccinated. Factors to be considered include, <i>inter alia</i>, the effectiveness of the vaccine, the risk of side effects, and whether or not cells from aborted fetuses were used in the development of the vaccine (on which see <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html" target="_blank">here</a>).</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">That said, compliance with non-compulsory public health advisories (such as calls to be vaccinated against COVID-19) is at least congruent with the Christian's obligation to reverence governing authorities. It may also be a bad moral decision not to be vaccinated, if for instance one has failed to exercise discretion in one's sources of information about the vaccines. Certainly, when Christians become associated with "anti-vax" conspiracy theories, it does not make it easier for the world to regard the Church as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Many governments as well as private entities have placed restrictions on unvaccinated individuals. These include restrictions on travel, restrictions on being in certain public spaces (e.g., a workplace or school), and even making continued employment conditional on vaccination. Since private companies do exercise a legitimate domain of authority over their employees and customers, they are among those "human institutions" (1 Pet. 2:13) to whom subjection is obligatory for Christians. Unvaccinated Christians therefore cannot break such restrictions without shirking this sacred duty. Christians may, of course, exercise their democratic rights to speak or litigate against such restrictions if they believe them to be unjust. They cannot, however, violate laws or regulations or deny the legitimate authority of the institutions who issued them. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b> <a href="#otit53" name="osec53">5.3. Restrictions on Social Gatherings</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Because the coronavirus spreads person-to-person, governments have placed restrictions on the number of people who can assemble in one place, and at times forbidden public gatherings, including religious ones, entirely. This is a more complicated issue than mask mandates, because it interferes with a sacred Christian obligation to God, namely communal worship (Heb. 10:25). May Christians therefore defy government prohibitions on religious gatherings to fulfill their duty to worship God together?</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Assembling for worship <i>is </i>a Christian duty, but so is protecting human life. Since Christians assembling for worship on Sunday is analogous to—if not equivalent to—Jewish Sabbath observance, Mark 3:1-6 is highly relevant here. Jesus' opponents wanted to accuse him of violating his religious obligations because he healed a man on the Sabbath. Jesus' response was not that Sabbath observance was unimportant, but that <i>protecting human life was more important</i>: "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4) In the same vein, he gave the memorable chiasm, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Sunday worship is very important for Christians, but not as important as protecting life. Since government restrictions on public gatherings are designed precisely to protect human life (without interfering with communal life more than necessary), these regulations are consonant with the law of God and must be complied with. Thankfully, technology allows for communal worship and fellowship to continue virtually in a limited way while physical gatherings are not possible.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">We should note that secular government officials may place a lower valuation on the importance of religious gatherings than religious believers do. It is, therefore, important for religious leaders and communities to engage with government officials to influence them against setting restrictions that are unreasonable and excessive. Such engagement, along with litigation if deemed necessary, are ways of challenging restrictions on religious gatherings that may be unfair. <i>Violating </i>the regulations, however, is inconsonant with the Christian duty to be subject to the governing authorities.</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#otit6" name="osec6">6. Conclusion</a></b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The COVID-19 pandemic has brought much tragedy and difficulty on the world, Christians included. With numerous government regulations restricting what we used to know as normal life, it has also tested Christians' resolve to obey the apostolic commandment to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13). My hope for Christian readers is that, having read this article, you will be better informed about how to do so. My hope for non-Christian readers is that, having read this article, you will be better informed about how Christians ought to be conducting themselves, and will join with me in condemning all disobedience and disrespect of governing authorities that claims to uphold "Christian values."</div><br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> All Scripture quotations are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> I have italicised "be subject to" in each case because I have altered the NRSV's translation, "accept the authority of." To "accept authority" is too abstract; the passive form of the verb <i>hypotass</i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ō</i>, literally<i> </i>to be put in place under, denotes a submissive relationship (see BDAG lexicon).</span></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> BDAG define <i>anhypotaktos</i> here as, "pertaining to refusing submission to authority" (p. 91). The verb <i>hypotass</i><i style="text-align: left;">ō </i><span style="text-align: left;">is used for subjection to government authorities in 1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1, 5, and Titus 3:1. It is used for subjection to other authorities (parents, husbands, or masters) in </span><span style="text-align: left;">Luke 2:51, </span><span style="text-align: left;">Colossians 3:18, </span><span style="text-align: left;">Titus 2:5, 8, and </span><span style="text-align: left;">1 Peter 2:18, 3:1, 3:5.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com1Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-18696222531144806322021-09-05T17:02:00.006+02:002021-09-08T22:06:02.758+02:00"Lord of lords" and "King of kings" as Hebraic Superlatives<div id="demo-1"><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b> Introduction</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This article delves briefly into the meaning of the expression "Lord of lords" as used in Scripture and, in particular, draws out the Christological implications of its application to Christ in two passages (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The New Testament books were all composed in Greek. However, because nearly all of their authors were Jews and they contain frequent quotations and echoes from the Hebrew Scriptures, an understanding of Hebrew can sometimes shed light on the meaning of New Testament expressions. The argument of this article is that "Lord of lords" is a Hebraism and should be understood as a superlative with a sense equivalent to "greatest Lord" or "supreme Lord." Before turning to the New Testament, we need some background on the construct chain superlative in biblical Hebrew.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Construct Chain Superlatives in the Hebrew Bible</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Coulter H. George, Professor of Classics at the University of Virginia, explains an important difference between modern English and biblical Hebrew:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>For, in contrast to English, where adjectives are inflected for three different degrees—positive (<i>old</i>), comparative (<i>older</i>), superlative (<i>oldest</i>)—Hebrew adjectives do not have this option, so the comparative or, as here, superlative has to be expressed differently, with the phrase 'X of Xs' being a favored way of getting across the idea 'the most X.' But since this is a structure that requires a plural and a construct chain, and therefore works better with nouns, we can see part of what it means for Hebrew to be a language that lets nouns do a little more work relative to adjectives than would be the case in English.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Thus, a singular noun in construct state followed by the same noun in the plural is one way of expressing a superlative in biblical Hebrew.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor note that the construction need not to repeat the same noun but may consist of two similar nouns.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Let us look at a few examples from the Hebrew Bible.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup> In Noah's curse on Canaan in Genesis 9:25, he declares that Canaan will be a "slave of slaves" (עבד עבדים) to his brothers. "Slave of slaves" is a literal ("formally equivalent") translation of the Hebrew, but a <i>dynamically equivalent </i>translation, one that conveys the sense, would be "lowest of slaves" (NRSV).<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The Torah's instructions for the tabernacle in Exodus 26:33-34 distinguish an area designated "the holy" (הקדש) from an area designated the "holy of holies" (קדש הקדשים). The latter place could only be accessed by the high priest, and even then only once per year, on the Day of Atonement. "Holy of holies" here conveys the sense, "most holy" (NRSV).</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In Qoheleth [Ecclesiastes] 1:2, Qoheleth famously declares, "Vanity of vanities!" (הבל הבלים). Again, a dynamically equivalent translation would be, "Absolutely futile" (NET) or "Utter vanity!" Another book traditionally attributed to Solomon uses a construct chain superlative in its title: "The Song of Songs" (שיר השירים, Song of Solomon 1:1). The sense here is, "the greatest song," "the most wonderful song."<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In Isaiah 34:10, an oracle against Edom foretells that no one will pass through it for "perpetuity of perpetuities" (לנצח נצחים). The sense is "forever and ever," "for all eternity." A similar construction occurs in Daniel 7:18 (composed in Aramaic), where Daniel is told that the holy ones of the Most High would possess the kingdom for "perpetuity of perpetuities" (עלם עלמיא). The Old Greek version of Daniel renders this expression into Greek as <i>e</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōs tou ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōnos t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn </i>("until the age of ages"), and a nearly identical phrase occurs in Greek Daniel 3:90. This construct chain superlative may therefore have influenced the phrase <i>eis tous ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōnas t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn </i>("to the ages of ages"), which occurs frequently in the Greek New Testament (especially in the Book of Revelation) with the sense, "forever and ever."<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">There are other examples,<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> but our main interest lies in construct chain superlatives that are used of God. Certain human emperors such as Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar are referred to (by themselves, and even by God) as "king of kings" (מלך מלכיא in Ezra 7:12, Dan. 2:37 Aramaic; מלך מלכים in Ezek. 26:7). Recognised as a construct chain superlative, this title can be dynamically translated, "greatest king" or "supreme king." In similar fashion, the biblical writers refer to Yahweh himself as אל(הי) אלהים ("God of gods", Deut. 10:17; Josh. 22:22; Ps. 50:1; 84:8; 136:2; Dan. 2:47)<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> and אדני האדנים ("Lord of lords," Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:3).<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> Daniel is informed via a vision of a wicked future king who would rise against the שר שרים ("Prince of princes," Dan. 8:25); scholars debate whether this title refers to God himself or to Michael.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> The Hebrew Bible thus uses superlative constructions to describe Yahweh as "the greatest God" and "the supreme Lord."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> The title "king of kings" is also applied to God in Second Temple Jewish literature, though not in the Hebrew Bible itself.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> Notably, in the Old Greek version of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar qualifies his use of "king of kings" as a self-reference by acknowledging (after his seven-year humiliation) that it is the Most High, "God of gods and Lord of lords and Lord of kings," who has established him on his throne.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">To summarise, then, the Hebrew Bible can refer to powerful human rulers as "king of kings," and (possibly) to an archangel as "prince of princes," but the titles "God of gods" and "Lord of lords" are reserved exclusively for Yahweh. <i>All of these titles should be understood as superlatives, i.e. "supreme God," "supreme Lord," "supreme king," etc.</i> Subsequent Jewish literature increasingly uses "King of kings" for God, applying the title to human rulers only in a qualified manner.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>King of kings and Lord of lords in the New Testament</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">With this background in hand, we can turn to the New Testament. The expression "God of gods" does not occur, but "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" occur thrice each, always together (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). In the first instance, the referent is God:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>I charge you 14 to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will bring about at the right time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 16 It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. (1 Tim. 6:14-16 NRSV)</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This passage is plainly emphasising God's <i>exclusive </i>divine status: note the repeated use of the adjective <i>monos </i>("only"; "alone"). We should understand the author to be using the titles "King of kings" (<i>ho basileus t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn basileuont</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i>) and "Lord of lords" (<i>kyrios t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn kurieuont</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i>) as Hebraic superlatives; hence "supreme King" and "supreme Lord." These titles emphatically convey God's unique divine status and power.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Within the wider context of the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature and this text from 1 Timothy, it is therefore remarkable to find that in the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Christian author uses the titles "Lord of lords" and "King of kings" for <i>Christ. </i>In Revelation 17, John sees a vision that has obvious resonances with Daniel (e.g., evil kings represented by horns on a beast). An angel explains part of the vision to John, stating that these kings "will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords (<i>kyrios kyri</i><i>ōn</i>) and King of kings (<i>basileus basile</i><i>ōn</i>)
." In view of the Danielic connections, it is impossible not to see here an allusion to the "God of gods and Lord of kings" of Daniel 2:47, as well as to occurrences of the exact title "Lord of lords" in Deuteronomy 10:17 and Psalm 136:3.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> The author of Revelation therefore deliberately assigns a divine title to the Lamb, with meaning equivalent to "the Supreme Lord and King." Not content to do so once, the titles are repeated in Revelation 19:16, as the climax of a fearsome Christological vision.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Christological Implications</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What are the Christological implications of Jesus Christ being designated as "the supreme Lord and King," using a title ("Lord of lords") that is reserved exclusively for God in the Hebrew Bible? Two implications will be drawn out here: one concerning the Christological significance of the title <i>kyrios</i> and the other concerning the idea of Christ's supremacy.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Firstly, the application of this title to Jesus gives the lie to those who—to preserve a "low" Christology (or a confessional commitment to unitarianism)—downplay the Christological significance of the title <i>kyrios. </i>Such interpreters insist that, as used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, <i>kyrios </i>designates master or ruler in an earthly sense.<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> They emphasise that "God" (<i>theos</i>) is very rarely used of Christ in the New Testament, but overlook that "Lord" (<i>kyrios</i>)—one of the most common New Testament titles for Jesus—is just as lofty a title. Not only is <i>kyrios </i>the usual Greek translation of the Hebrew divine title אדני (which unitarians acknowledge is used only for God), but it is also the word usually used in the Septuagint to render the divine Name itself, יהוה, into Greek! If Christ, then, can be described as "the supreme Lord," can this be anything other than a divine claim? (This is not to deny, of course, that <i>kyrios can </i>be used in a mundane sense like "sir," "lord," "master," and is sometimes used of Jesus in this sense in the Gospels. But it is precisely texts like Revelation 17:14 and 19:16 that show conclusively that a much loftier sense is in view.)</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It appears to this writer that, rather than the New Testament writers shying away from calling Christ <i>theos</i> and opting for what they saw as an <i>inferior </i>title, <i>kyrios</i>, they witness to the emergence of a pattern whereby the Father is typically designated <i>theos </i>and the Son <i>kyrios </i>(with some exceptions on both counts), <i>these both being divine titles</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup> The most striking occurrence of this pattern occurs in 1 Corinthians 8:6, where Paul quotes a creedal tradition that—according to the majority of New Testament scholars—splits the language of the Shema` (Deut. 6:4) between "one <i>God</i>, the Father" and "one <i>Lord</i>, Jesus Christ."<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> It is remarkable that this text (like Ephesians 4:4-6) can profess belief in "one Lord" alongside "one God," without any qualification in light of the fact that Second Temple Judaism professed belief that <i>God is the one Lord.</i><sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Secondly, let us move beyond titles and reflect on what "supreme Lord and King" conveys conceptually about Christ's majesty and power. I am reminded of a post from several years ago on a unitarian apologetics Facebook page that <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ChristianOrigins/photos/a.509309195891046/602782469877051" target="_blank">commented</a> on a 6th-century Byzantine depiction of Jesus as "Christ Pantokrator." The writer notes, "'Pantoraktor' [<i>sic</i>] is the Greek word for 'almighty.' Note that Scripture never refers to Jesus in this way; it is a title reserved exclusively for God." He goes on to observe that, in the painting, Christ looks beyond and away from the viewer, which "reflects the imperial aloofness with which Jesus was now associated. He is no longer a man: he is a god-emperor, like the original Caesars."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br />There are several problems with this argument. It presupposes a false dilemma, as though Jesus can either be human shepherd or divine emperor but not both, and that an artist who depicts him as one denies the other. If we take scenes from the New Testament, would we expect an artist painting the Transfiguration or the Ascension—or Jesus as envisioned in Revelation 1:12-15, for that matter—to depict him as making relatable eye contact with the viewer? A second problem with the argument is that it dwells too much on the title Pantokrator. While it is true that <i>pantokrat</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōr </i>("almighty"; "omnipotent") is not used of Christ in the New Testament, it is not a common word there (occurring only ten times, and in two books). Further undermining this argument from silence is the observation that the <i>concept</i> conveyed by <i>pantokrat</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōr </i><i>is</i> applied to Christ. <i>Pantokrat</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōr </i>is a compound formed from <i>pas </i>("all") and <i>kratos </i>("might"; "power"; "sovereignty"). The operative question, therefore, is whether the New Testament ascribes universal power to Jesus. In the title "supreme Lord and King," we already have our answer. Of course, the evidence goes far beyond this. Since nine of the ten NT occurrences of <i>pantokrat</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōr </i>for God are in Revelation, it is significant that this book twice ascribes <i>kratos </i>("might") to the exalted Christ.<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> Moreover, if we consider the occurrences of <i>pantokrat</i><i>ōr </i>in Revelation, it is unlikely that the word is intended to emphasise God's power as distinct from Christ's.<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> Meanwhile, other New Testament writings describe the exalted Christ as having been given "All authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18), as "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36), as having "power that enables him...to bring all things into subjection to himself" (Phil. 3:21), as "before all things" (Col. 1:17), and as sustaining "all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3). The question arises: <i>what power is lacking in Christ, exactly, that he must be not be called </i><i style="text-align: justify;">Pantokrat</i><i>ōr?</i><sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup></div><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In conclusion, then, with the Christological title "Lord of lords and King of kings" properly understood as designating Jesus the supreme Lord and King, we can recognise that the Book of Revelation offers a high Christology, in which Christ shares in the exclusive prerogatives of deity, such as absolute sovereignty over the cosmos. While this title is unparalleled in other New Testament texts, it is congruent with the high Christology that emerges from the letters of Paul and the letter to the Hebrews.</div><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Coulter H. George, How Dead Languages Work [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020], 211.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> This is by no means the only way that superlatives are expressed in biblical Hebrew. For a broader discussion, see D. Winton Thomas, "A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew," <i>Vetus Testamentum 3 </i>(1953): 209-24.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, <i>An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax</i> (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 267.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Most of these are drawn from Waltke and O'Connor, <i>Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax</i>, 267.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> The Septuagint translator has also understood the expression to be idiomatic and has rendered it with <i>pais oiketēs </i>("house slave"), which perhaps represents the lowest rank among slaves.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> The New Living Translation conveys the superlative sense with a gloss: "This is Solomon’s song of songs, more wonderful than any other."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> E.g., Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6; 1:18; 4:9-10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5. Revelation 14:11 uses the anarthrous construction <i>ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōnas ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i>. That this verse departs from the ordinary usage in Revelation is interesting, since Revelation 14:11 alludes to Isaiah 34:10, where a construct chain superlative occurs. The phrase <i>eis tous ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōnas t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn ai</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn </i>is attested once in the Greek Old Testament, in Psalm 83:5. However, Psalm 84:5 MT does not have a construct chain superlative. The concept of a future eternity is nearly absent from the Hebrew Bible.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Jeremiah 3:19 is an interesting case. The KJV renders, "How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations?" It follows the MT, which has צבי צבאות, literally, "beauty of hosts" of nations. However, many scholars argue that this should be emended to צבי צבות, literally "beauty of beauties." R. Abma states, "The word צבאות in the apposition צבי צבאות גוים is, in spite of the א, to be understood as a plural of the noun צבי ('beauty') rather than of the noun צבא ('host'). This is the only case that the noun צבי is found in the plural, so that this plural form may be an unconscious adjustment to the common plural צבאות (cf. the expression 'Yhwh of hosts'). The construction of two identical nouns with the second in the plural expresses a 'superlative idea'... which explains the translation 'an inheritance most beauteous among the nations." (<i>Bonds of love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1-3 and 54:1-10, Hosea 1-3, Jeremiah 2-3)</i> [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999], 231). Hence, the NRSV has, "the most beautiful heritage of all the nations." In Jeremiah 6:28, Yahweh describes his people as סרי סוררים (literally, "rebels of rebels"). A dynamically equivalent translation would be, "the most stubborn of rebels" (NET).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Daniel 2:47 (composed in Aramaic) reads אלה אלהין. The Old Greek version of Daniel adds several further references to God as the "God of gods" ([ὁ θεὸς τῶν θεῶν] in 3:90, 4:30a, 4:30c, 4:34, and 11:36.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> The nearly equivalent expression מרא מלכין ("Lord of kings") occurs in the Aramaic of Daniel 2:47, while the Old Greek version of Daniel 4:34 refers to the Most High as "God of gods and Lord of lords and Lord of kings."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> See Amy C. Merrill Willis, "Heavenly Bodies: God and the Body in the Visions of Daniel," in S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim (eds.), <i>Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible</i> (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 29-30 n. 63.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> The expression "the greatest God" (like its literal rendering, "God of gods") might seem to undermine monotheism, since it implies the existence of other gods. However, it is clear that monotheism is a concept that develops through the course of biblical revelation. In earlier strata of biblical literature one finds Israel called to monolatry (exclusive worship of God), who is understood as the highest member of a council of divine beings. The status of these other "gods" is gradually degraded until they are reduced to sub-divine beings like angels or demons.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> E.g., as (ὁ) βασιλεὺς (τῶν) βασιλέων in 2 Maccabees 13:4, 3 Maccabees 5:35.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> The Septuagint of both of these passages has the title in the form <i>(ho) </i><i>kyrios (t</i><i style="text-align: left;">ōn)</i><i> kyri</i><i>ōn</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> That the one seen in this vision is Christ is evident not only from his wearing a robe dipped in blood, and the allusion to Psalm 2:9 ("he will rule them with a rod of iron"), but also from the correspondences with the vision in Revelation 1:12-18, where one who likewise has eyes like a flame of fire and a sharp sword coming from his mouth identifies himself to John as the one who lives and had been dead.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> See, for instance, my recent review of a unitarian polemical work, <i><a href="https://www.academia.edu/49161568/Review_of_and_Response_to_The_Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Christianitys_Self_Inflicted_Wound_by_Anthony_F_Buzzard_and_Charles_F_Hunting" target="_blank">Review of and Response to The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound</a></i>, especially pp. 9-10, 25-27.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> The Father is more commonly called <i>kyrios </i>than the Son <i>theos</i>, but this is to be expected due to (a) it being the established practice in Hellenistic Judaism to use <i>kyrios </i>for God, and (b) the application to the Father of biblical quotations containing the word <i>kyrios</i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> See further discussion of this text on pp. 16-18 of my recent <i><a href="https://www.academia.edu/49161568/Review_of_and_Response_to_The_Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Christianitys_Self_Inflicted_Wound_by_Anthony_F_Buzzard_and_Charles_F_Hunting" target="_blank">Review and Response</a>.</i></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> See Deuteronomy 6:4 and Zechariah 14:9 (both MT and LXX). Note also the Old Greek version of Daniel 3:17, where Daniel's three friends testify, "there is one God who is in heaven, our one Lord, whom we fear, who is able to deliver us from the furnace of fire" (New English Translation of the Septuagint).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> "To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion (<i>kratos</i>) forever and ever. Amen." (Rev. 1:6 NRSV). A hymn in the throne vision of chapter 5 ascribes "blessing and honour and glory and might (<i>kratos</i>) forever and ever" "to the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb" (5:13). In 1 Peter 4:11 and 5:11, two doxologies ascribe <i>kratos </i>to Christ and to God, respectively.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> For instance, in the first instance (Rev. 1:8), the Lord God introduces himself as "the Alpha and Omega...the one who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." "Alpha and Omega" (or its semantic equivalent, "first and last," drawn from deutero-Isaiah) are applied repeatedly to Christ in this book (1:17-18; 2:8; 22:13). In another instance, heavenly saints sing to "Lord God Almighty...king of the nations," in what is described as "the song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb." Since Revelation contains other songs sung <i>about </i>the Lamb but none sung <i>by </i>the Lamb, some scholars take the second genitive as objective: "the song about the Lamb" (see David E. Aune, <i>Revelation 6-16</i> [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 872-73; Keith T. Marriner, <i>Following the Lamb: The Theme of Discipleship in the Book of Revelation</i> [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016], 174 n. 447). If so, the Lamb is at least indirectly included in the title <i>pantokrat</i><i>ōr</i>. Moreover, God's "almighty" status is characterised in terms of his being "king of the nations," which is equivalent to what the book says elsewhere about Jesus, who is "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5). In Revelation 19:15, it is Christ who treads out in the wine press the wrath of God Almighty. In Revelation 21:22, the new Jerusalem has the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb <i>jointly </i>as its temple.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> Note that the Church Fathers applied the title <i style="text-align: justify;">Pantokrat</i><i>ōr</i> to Jesus long before the famous sixth-century painting. According to Lampe's <i style="text-align: justify;">Patristic Greek Lexicon</i>, the term is applied to the Son or the Logos already by second- and third-century writers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hippolytus of Rome (G.W.H. Lampe, <i style="text-align: justify;">Patristic Greek Lexicon </i>[Oxford: Clarendon, 1961], 1005.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-28752937242897815082021-08-22T22:49:00.014+02:002021-08-23T00:18:58.853+02:00Review of "The Immortality of the Soul: Is it Biblical?" by Fr Emmanuel Cazanave<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This article reviews an article entitled, «L'immortalité de l'âme est-elle biblique?» ("The immortality of the soul: Is it biblical?") by Fr Emmanuel Cazanave.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup> Rev Dr Cazanave is a priest of the diocese of Toulouse, France and a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Theology at the <i>Institut catholique de Toulouse</i>. The topic is of interest to me as a reader who has moved from a confessional community that answers an emphatic "No" to the titular question (the Christadelphians),<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> to one that affirms the immortality of the soul as a matter of dogma (the Roman Catholic Church).<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> In my view, Fr Cazanave offers insights that could be useful to a diverse audience. I refer firstly to those who deny the immortality of the soul and hold an "annihilationist" position (that death reduces the human person to nothing). Secondly, I refer to myriads of Catholics who are misinformed about Church teaching and regard death as a welcome escape from bodily existence. Since the article is probably inaccessible to most readers of this blog, due to being written in French, I thought I would offer a review with a little of my own commentary. I should mention that I also do not have access to the published version of the article, but Fr Cazanave kindly sent me a preprint.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The article is broader in scope than the title suggests. It is divided into four main sections, only one of which deals primarily with biblical exegesis. Fr Cazanave first explains what the Magisterium—the teaching office of the Catholic Church—has stated on the subject of the immortality of the soul. Secondly, he lists some theological objections to the doctrine of the soul's immortality and attempts to answer them. Thirdly, he surveys biblical evidence pertaining to the topic. Fourthly, he discusses the contributions of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the Church's most important theologians.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Introduction</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the article's introduction, Fr Cazanave briefly surveys much of the ground that he will dig into more deeply later on. He begins by acknowleding an apparent incongruity between the notion of the immortality of the soul—understood as the existence of a disembodied human soul after death—and the biblical vision of the human person, which exhibits a profound unity that seems to exclude any notion of a separable soul. He further points out that the idea of an immortal soul brings with it the danger (also highlighted in recent times by Protestant luminaries such as Oscar Cullmann and N.T. Wright) of a distorted Christian doctrine of resurrection. He admits that many Christians conceive of resurrection as simply an afterlife of the soul without the body, and indeed that the majority of Catholics no longer believe in the resurrection of the body (notwithstanding that Catholics testify to such belief at every Mass when reciting the Creed).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In view of these problems, Fr Cazanave concedes that the opposition of some theologians to any concept of a soul or an immortal soul, which they denounce as a pollution of Judaeo-Christian thought by Greek philosophy, is understandable. But what is the alternative? One option is what he refers to as "total death": after death, the body returns to dust and whatever is meant by "soul" also no longer exists. Death is therefore the annihilation of the person. Corresponding to "total death," therefore, is "total resurrection," whereby God at the eschaton resuscitates humans in both their bodily and psychological or pneumatic dimensions. This doctrine both preserves the unity of the "biblical human" and avoids any confusion between the resurrection and ideas about the soul.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Nevertheless, Fr Cazanave expresses a number of reservations about accepting this "total death and total resurrection" doctrine. First, and obviously significant for a Catholic priest such as himself, the Church's Magisterium has for many centuries affirmed and reaffirmed the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Second, while conceding the Bible does not offer a notion of the immortality of the soul <i>in the manner of a philosophical definition or a positive affirmation</i>, he argues that this observation leaves the question unresolved, because the Bible is not written like a theological manual. This seems to me to be a vital point, since many Protestants—particularly of a fundamentalist or sectarian disposition—approach the Bible precisely as a doctrinal treatise or dogmatic constitution, <i>and therefore presuppose that if a doctrine is "biblical," it must be expressly defined within the Bible</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> And, as Fr Cazanave observes, there is no shortage of biblical passages that at the very least call into question efforts by "total death" theologians to annul the notion of a soul and its immortality.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave proceeds to ask whether the doctrine of "total death for total resurrection" really corresponds to biblical anthropology. What, he asks, would it mean to be created in the image of God if that image in no way reflects the eternity of its Creator? Fr Cazanave also underlines the notion of progressive revelation: the idea of the "biblical human" is not static, but evolves organically throughout the biblical revelation. The later texts do not contradict the earlier, but develop their ideas further in the same direction.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave concludes his introduction by emphasising that the notion of an immortal soul existing in a disembodied state is paradoxical, since God wills for humans to be whole, which entails embodiment. The notion of a disembodied soul is thus tied up in the mystery of sin, of death, and of the permanence of the divine purpose despite them. No one faithful to the biblical idea of resurrection can deny, he says, that a soul no longer giving form to matter in its own body is «une absurdité». Yet it is an absurdity in the same measure that sin is absurd! Since neither sin nor death was part of God's purpose for humanity, the same is true of a disembodied soul, which is only possible in death. Nevertheless, could not, asks Fr Cazanave, the latter be the sign of the permanence of the divine plan in the face of sin?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>1. The Teaching of the Magisterium</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave does not discuss the teachings of the Church Fathers concerning the soul. However, as I have written elsewhere, it is clear from the earliest post-apostolic writings that, even as early Christian writings such as <i>1 Clement </i>and Justin Martyr strongly emphasised bodily resurrection or even polemicised against Neo-Platonist ideas that denigrated bodily existence, they nonetheless affirmed the real existence of the faithful between death and resurrection.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> Fr Cazanave instead focuses on magisterial teaching that has emanated from ecumenical councils. At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17), the Catholic Church dogmatically affirmed the existence of a human soul as well as its immortality. An implication of this is the notion of an "intermediate state" between individual death and resurrection during which the human soul may be said to subsist "separately" without a body. Moreover, Pope Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council condemned those who assert that the soul is mortal. This teaching has been constantly reaffirmed since, including in the document <i>Gaudium et Spes </i>from the most recent ecumenical council, Vatican II (1962-65). In a 1979 letter to bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the use of the word "soul" for that conscious element of the human "me" that subsists after death, without ignoring that this word takes on several meanings in Scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>2. The Difficulties Posed by the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>2.1. Is the immortality of the soul incompatible with resurrection?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave next addresses theological objections that have been raised against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, some of which had already been mentioned in the introduction. He quotes Protestant theologian Philippie-Henri Menoud to the effect that the ideas of immortality of the soul and resurrection of the body are not compatible but mutually exclusive notions between which one must choose, with the New Testament coming down decisively on the side of the latter. In response, Fr Cazanave reiterates an important point he has made earlier: Sacred Scripture is not a treatise on psychology and does not give conceptual definitions as a work of systematic philosophy would. He describes the practice of looking for an anthropological treatise in the biblical writings as a «piège» (trap), commenting that even if one were to assemble all the passages that describe man,<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a></sup> this would not equate to the logical components of a systematic discourse on the subject.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Instead, Fr Cazanave argues that research into biblical anthropology must be theologically oriented, focusing not on man in himself but on God and the intent he reveals through the manifestations of his presence and action in the economy of salvation. Hence, he regards as a key text Wisdom 1:13-14, which asserts that God "did not make death nor does he delight in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might exist..." (NETS)<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup> Fr Cazanave comments that death certainly exists and things disappear when it reaches them. Nevertheless, man exists by virtue of a form that transcends his matter while constituting only a single <i>actus essendi </i>(Latin, "act of being"), matter and form. It is this paradox by which man uniquely exists in the image of God. In a world characterised by signification (the presence of divine signs), the sustenance of the human form beyond the destruction of its matter is the sign of persistence of the divine plan. Fr Cazanave reiterates the analogy between sin and death: just as sin has wounded mankind but not annihilated it, so death does not annihilate man but signals the absurdity of sin by the unthinkable separation of soul from body. The disembodied soul subsists without realising what it is essentially made for—to "in-form" matter, thereby making it into a body—and thus conveys the gravity of sin and the tragedy of death. In this sense, the terminology "<i>immortality </i>of the soul" is rather unfortunate.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> In Scripture, immortality is not mere existence but a hoped-for reward: life in all its fullness. Moreover, the term "immortality" suggests imperviousness to death, whereas—in terms of Fr Cazanave's description—the soul is wounded or denuded by its paradoxical separation from the body. The term "immortality" in "immortality of the soul" should be understood in the sense of <i>subsistence </i>and not in the biblical sense of eternal blessedness.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave then points out a central truth of biblical revelation, namely that <i>God created man to be in covenant with him</i>. God does not change and his covenant is eternal. Yet how can a covenant continue when one of the parties to it no longer exists? He therefore argues that the subsistence of man's being after death, the fact of his remaining without returning to nothingness, provides a point of connection between the One who simply Is and his creature. The immortality of the soul thus witnesses to the irrevocability of God's covenantal plan. Fr Cazanave thus summarises that the apparent absurdity of the soul's subsistence without the body is a sign conveying two important truths:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><ol><li>The gravity of sin, which upsets the order of God's creation but does not cause him to renounce it altogether; </li><li>The irrevocable power of the Creator's merciful plan of redemption</li></ol></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A key text cited by Fr Cazanave in support of this theological anthropology is Romans 14:7-9, where St. Paul declares that we belong to the Lord in death as in life. The Lord, infers Fr Cazanave, is not the Lord of nothingness or of a memory of that which has lapsed into nothingness.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>2.2. Is the idea of the immortality of the soul a pollution of Christian thought by Greek philosophy?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Having quoted some theologians—including the great Karl Barth—who describe the idea of the immortality of the soul as a contamination of Judaeo-Christian thought by Greek philosophy, Fr Cazanave poses two questions. Firstly, is there really a clearly defined Greek anthropology that posits a body/soul dualism? Secondly, is Christian thought in its development—especially the scholasticism of the second millennium—truly dualistic and does it really oppose soul and body?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">To the first question, Fr Cazanave responds that, according to recent research, the Greek heritage is one of questioning and exploration rather than of clearly established definitions. It would be reductionist to think of "Greek philosophy" in monolithic terms. Even Plato, although influenced by the mystery religion of Orphism (in which the soul is clearly distinct from the body and imprisoned by it), only uses this tradition in the service of a philosophical vision. Plato did not bequeath a coherent philosophical definition of the soul and its relation to the body that could simply be passed on by others. Fr Cazanave grants that the school of Neo-Platonism systematised some of Plato's ideas in the direction of a dualistic anthropology in which the body imprisons the soul. However, he warns, this line of thought is not the only representative of Greek philosophy. On the contrary, in Aristotelian thought, the principle of animation (the soul) and the matter so animated (the body) are so unified and interdependent that they disappear together in death (though some interpreters of Aristotle maintain that, for Aristotle, something of the soul remains after death.) It is clear, therefore, that early Christianity did not simply inherit a well-defined "Greek anthropology." The thought of the Church Fathers and later the scholastics draws on various currents of the Greek tradition but does not adopt them uncritically. And Magisterial teaching on the soul, as promulgated dogmatically in the second millennium, is unambiguously Aristotelian—not Neo-Platonist—in its philosophical orientation.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>2.3. Is "total death for total resurrection" biblical?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave next observes that contemporary theologians present us with a stark choice: either be faithful to the unitary anthropology of the Bible and adopt a "total death for total resurrection" doctrine, or pollute biblical faith by clinging to the notion of an immortal soul that subsists in an "intermediate state" between death and eschatological resurrection. The first option not only entails choosing the Bible over Greek influence, but also restoring the primacy of divine action over against an exaltation of human autonomy expressed in the natural immortality of the soul. He notes that at their most extreme, detractors of the immortality of the soul concept regard it as an exemplification of human pride just as occurs in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) and at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The notion of "total death for total resurrection" may appear to do justice to biblical notions of divine primacy and unitary anthropology, but for Fr Cazanave a serious concern arises: what of the intermediate time between the moment of death and that of resurrection? The annihilation of the deceased makes it impossible to think of a continuity of the personal "me" and in this respect is hardly biblical, for there is then not a resurrection but a <i>re-creation</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> The person who is rewarded is not the same "me" as the one who died. Fr Cazanave notes two solutions to this conundrum that theologians typically offer. The first is that the dead person is held in God's memory (cf. Isa. 49:15-16). However, is it really "existence" for one to exist only within the memory of God? To refer to an earlier point, can <i>annihilation </i>really be the sign and witness of the irrevocability of the divine plan? Can a covenant subsist while one of its parties does not? Moreover, does the notion of an annihilation that is attenuated by an absorption into the memory of the divine Word not resemble the Neo-Platonist idea of the divine part of the soul merging with the divinity?<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> This resemblance is ironic, given that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is often accused of being a Neo-Platonist corruption of Christianity.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave notes that other theologians have sought to address this problem by positing that resurrection takes place immediately after death (e.g., due to the dead passing outside of linear time). However, such a doctrine is at odds with the biblical vision of history and time, which compels us to situate the resurrection of the body at the Parousia of Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>3. The "Biblical Man"</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>3.1. The human person and death in the Hebrew Bible</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave quotes the Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann to the effect that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul represents a serious misunderstanding of both Old and New Testaments. In response, Fr Cazanave surveys biblical anthropology. Beginning with the Hebrew Bible, he asserts that it presents a man who is fundamentally one, and that any kind of soul/body dualism is foreign to it. A man is characterised by three dimensions or elements: the <i>nefesh</i>, the <i>basar</i>, and the <i>ruah</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> <i>Nefesh </i>designates the throat and respiration and can be understood as the breath that signifies man as a living being who desires, who possesses an appetite. <i>Nefesh </i>is therefore the person, who is not self-sufficient but fulfilled by aspiring to something beyond oneself. The <i>basar </i>is then the bodily and carnal expression and manifestation of the <i>nefesh</i>, the two being dimensions of one psycho-physiological being. The <i>ruah </i>is the spirit of God, which communicates to man something of divine energy and establishes him in relation to God.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Death, then, occurs when God withdraws the <i>ruah </i>(Qoh. 12:7) and the <i>basar </i>perishes (Job 34:14-15). Fr Cazanave states that, since the biblical man is characterised by profound unity, one could be tempted to conceive of biblical death as the disappearance of the whole person. However, while the early biblical vision of the afterlife is less than cheerful and akin to the Babylonian idea of a dark abode, there are indications that the deceased do not return to nothingness. The deceased are <i>rephaim</i>, mere shadows of themselves (e.g., Job 26:5; Prov. 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:9); but being reduced to a shadow, to sleepiness or a comatose state, is not equivalent to ontological annihilation. Thus, Fr Cazanave infers that the <i>nefesh</i>, despite being deprived of the vital breath (<i>ruah</i>),<i> </i>does not return to nothingness at death. In a similar vein, Fr Cazanave argues that descriptions of the dead as being in a place, <i>Sheol—</i>albeit a place of darkness, shadow, and disorder (Job 10:20-22; cf. 3:13-19, Ps. 88:9-12)—imply that the dead have not completely ceased to exist.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a> </sup>Death in the Hebrew Bible is an unenviable, unfulfilling state but it is not annihilation.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>3.2. Not the God of the dead, but of the living</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave asserts that Jesus' affirmation to the Sadducees, "He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Mark 12:27 par.) confirms the evolution of intertestamental Jewish eschatology, in which faith in bodily resurrection appears, the fruit of reflection on the faithfulness of God to his covenant. While some early biblical texts on resurrection probably refer—at the grammatical-historical level—to political or national revivals within history (e.g., Isa. 26:19; Ezekiel 37), the hope of individual bodily resurrection at the end of history appears explicitly in late strata of the Old Testament, such as Daniel 12:2 and 2 Maccabees 7. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Jewish faith in the resurrection required, argues Fr Cazanave, a harmonisation between two convictions: (i) a certain continuation of the "I" after death, albeit in a shadowy state; and (ii) the eschatological resurrection of the flesh. Together, these two affirmations necessitate an "intermediate state" in which the person exists in a kind of "standby" between death and resurrection. Fr Cazanave reasons that later biblical authors—particularly the author of Wisdom of Solomon—adopted the Hellenistic notion of the immortality of the soul to help conceptualise the post-mortem continuation of the <i>nefesh</i>. He emphasises that this adoption is <i>not </i>a pollution of biblical thought by "Greek philosophy" (which did not offer a monolithic concept of the soul) but the assimilation of a concept useful in the ongoing development of biblical thought. Moreover, it was not Greek thought <i>in its entirety</i>, nor even a thoroughgoing dualism, that was adopted. The selective and discerning assimilation of Greek ideas about the soul does not necessarily result in a dualism that elevates the soul, denigrates embodiment, and destroys the unity of the human person. Fr Cazanave warns that reductionism on this point is the source of widespread misunderstanding.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A further clarification offered by Fr Cazanave is that a doctrine of the immortality of the soul that is compatible with Scripture would not be a doctrine of <i>natural </i>immortality. That is, the soul's immortality is not due to its own intrinsic nature but to the faithfulness of God (Wisdom 3:1-4).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>3.3. The Soul in the New Testament</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave points to Matthew 10:28 ("Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul") as a text that mentions the soul/body distinction. He acknowledges that <i>psyche </i>("soul") in this text designates the whole person in her capacity to transcend the earthly dimension of life. Nonetheless, he considers it significant that a distinction between body and soul is made (and that the whole person is not annihilated by earthly death).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Our author identifies the Gospel of St. Luke as the New Testament book with the greatest interest in the question of the fate of the dead before the Parousia. In this respect, he points to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31) and Jesus' saying on the cross to the good thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> The emphasis in the latter text is on presence <i>with Christ</i>. This same emphasis emerges in St. Paul's concept of the intermediate state (2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:20-24). Fr Cazanave asserts that, by equating his death with "being with Christ," St. Paul clearly shows that he does not think of death in terms of annihilation. Moreover, if he was thinking merely of a datum in God's memory, he would not have used the term <i>sun Christ</i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>ō</i></span><i> einai </i>("being with Christ"). These passages draw out the afterlife implications of Paul's assertion in Romans 14:8-9 that "whether we live or die, we are the Lord's" and that Christ is "Lord of both the dead and the living." St. Paul's experience of union with Christ is so intimate that he cannot conceive of it being dissolved, even temporarily, by death (cf. Rom. 8:38).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave draws another important insight on Pauline anthropology from 2 Corinthians 12:2. This text is concerned with a mystical experience rather than death, but for Paul to twice say of the experience "whether in the body or out of the body I do not know" shows that a strict identification of the "I" with the body is not in accordance with Paul's thought. Indeed, his words imply some separability from bodily existence (without in any way denigrating embodiment).</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">There are numerous other New Testament texts relevant to the subject of the intermediate state that the article does not discuss. The subject is obviously not a major concern of the New Testament writers (why would it be, since they expected an imminent Parousia?) and is never treated systematically, but there is enough evidence to conclude that they anticipated the ontological continuation of the person <i>in Christ's presence </i>between death and resurrection.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>4. St. Thomas and Scholasticism: A Keen Awareness of the Difficulty</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the last part of the article, Fr Cazanave interacts with the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Common Doctor's anthropology draws on Aristotelian thought, in which the soul is the form of the body: it in-forms (gives form to) matter, allowing it to realise its potential as a human body. The soul is for a body and the body is for a soul; they are so profoundly united that the body is like the skin of the soul. The soul is a single <i>actus essendi </i>("act of being") with the body, but being made spiritually in the image of God, is personal and immortal. The body and soul are not two beings that come together but together constitute a single being.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Within this framework, the notion of a human soul without a body is a contradiction, and St. Thomas so acutely appreciates the difficulty of thinking of a soul separated from its body after death that he wonders whether such a soul can even be described as a person. Clearly, St. Thomas cannot be accused of a Neo-Platonic dualism in which death is the soul's liberation from its bodily prison. Fr Cazanave quotes at length from Joseph Ratzinger's assessment of the anthropological problem faced by medieval theologians and St. Thomas' solution thereto. Theological anthropology had, on the one hand, to recognise in each human person a unique creature of God, created as a unified whole and willed to exist. On the other hand, it had to distinguish between that which is ephemeral in man and that which endures. The <i>ephemeral </i>accounts for the reality of death brought on by sin, while the <i>enduring </i>opens the way to resurrection (as opposed to re-creation <i>ex nihilo</i>). </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Although St. Thomas' anthropology is Aristotelian in orientation, he does not adopt Aristotelian anthropology uncritically. For Aristotle, "form" is a reality only when united with matter, and thus the soul dies with the body. If, conversely, the soul is "immortal," it is immortal in a universal, not an individual, sense. The idea that the human soul is at once personal and "form" of matter would have been inconceivable to Aristotle. Thus, St. Thomas goes beyond Aristotle by conceiving of the soul as an intellectual substance, a <i>substantial </i>form of matter. In short, St. Thomas' idea of the soul as the substantial form of the body provides a philosophical anthropology that at once preserves the fundamental unity of the human person (against the Neo-Platonist idea of the body as the soul's instrument), the particularity of each human person (against any notion of a "universal spirit" into which one is absorbed at death), and the substantial soul as the subject of rationality (against the materialist idea of the rationality of un-in-formed matter).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Fr Cazanave begins his conclusion by acknowledging that the idea of the immortality of the soul presents dangers (that do not, however, invalidate the doctrine). Firstly, there is the danger of veering into a Neo-Platonist anthropology in which the soul is the real person and the body a mere vehicle. This danger is all too commonly seen in popular Christian piety, including among Catholics, and reduces resurrection to a redundant afterthought. The profound unity of the human person, as taught by the Bible, must be reaffirmed, and the resurrection of the body reaffirmed as the Christian hope.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Secondly, there is a danger that the idea of an immortal soul leads to a proud self-exaltation by man in the face of his Creator. If the Church affirms that the soul endures in death, this is not to surrender to the quest for vain consolation, but is a reflection of the eternal purpose of God for his image-bearers. The absurdity of a soul without a body to give form to is not bypassed but becomes the sign of another absurdity—sin—that however did not defeat the Creator's plan.</div>
<div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">It seems, therefore, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is widely misunderstood by many of its adherents and detractors alike! Many on both sides seem to conceive of the doctrine as elevating the soul at the expense of the body and obviating the need for resurrection. In my estimation, Fr Cazanave's article makes an important contribution toward correcting misconceptions of the Church's teaching. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">From an exegetical standpoint, one of Fr Cazanave's most significant observations is that the Bible cannot be approached as though it were a systematic theological treatise (either at the level of individual passages or formed by assembling various texts). Scripture does not conform to human expectations by treating subjects with a level of detail and precision proportional to our level of interest. Scripture does not, in fact, offer us either a philosophically precise account of the human person or of human death. It does, however, offer a vision for man, individually and collectively, as purposed by his Creator. In reflecting on that vision, the Church has seen fit to promulgate a doctrine of the immortality of the soul—or, as it might be termed to avoid confusion—the subsistence of the human person despite death and until resurrection.</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Cazanave, E, «L'immortalité de l'âme est-elle biblique?», <i>Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique 120 </i>(2019): 7-43.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Article 7 of the <i><a href="http://www.christadelphia.org/reject.php" target="_blank">Doctrines to be Rejected</a> </i>of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith reads, "We reject the doctrine - that man has an immortal soul." The main statement affirms belief in the Resurrection of (some of) the Dead at the Second Coming of Christ, with the final judgment leading to one of two destinies: bodily immortality or annihilation.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> See, for instance, articles 362-68 of the <i><a href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM" target="_blank">Catechism of the Catholic Church</a></i>. Following St. Thomas Aquinas and others, the Catholic Church follows an Aristotelian anthropology in which the soul is described as the "form of the body." The Church does not in any way denigrate corporeality or materiality. The Catechism states that "every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not 'produced' by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection" (CCC 366). The Church's teaching on what happens at death is summarised thus: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers to his life in Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification or immediately,—or immediate and everlasting damnation" (CCC 1022). Thus, the Church affirms an intermediate state that is incorporeal but already anticipates the final state that will occur after the Resurrection of the Dead and the Last Judgment.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> For this reason, I will not cite page numbers in referencing the work.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> No one who has spent much time with Scripture can suppose that Scripture always reveals truths in this way. The New Testament epistles, much as the Old Testament prophets, for instance, are largely of an occasional nature. They <i>bear witness to </i>theological truths as often as they <i>explicitly teach them</i>. Hence, rather than imposing on the Holy Spirit an obligation to reveal the dogma of the immortality of the soul (or any other truth) on our terms, our task is to carefully interpret what Scripture does reveal, even indirectly.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"> For instance, contemporary biblical scholars now widely agree that the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible convey nothing of a beatific afterlife, including personal resurrection; this is a development that appears only well into the Second Temple Period.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> On <i>1 Clement, </i>see my article, <i><a href="https://www.academia.edu/31901579/A_Systematic_Theological_Analysis_of_Mortalism_as_an_Evangelical_Position" target="_blank">A Systematic-Theological Analysis of Mortalism as an Evangelical Position</a> </i>(written while I was still an Evangelical). On Justin Martyr's ideas about the soul and afterlife, see my article, <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2016/08/justin-martyr-soul-and-christadelphian.html" target="_blank">Justin Martyr, the Soul, and Christadelphian Apologetics</a></i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"> I follow Fr Cazanave in using the term "man" to describe humanity or the generic human; this term should be understood in a gender-inclusive sense.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> The point was already made in the introduction but bears repeating since this seems to be precisely the hermeneutical methodology taken by some interpreters of Scripture.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> A number of important biblical texts bearing on our subject come from the deutero-canonical books, which are of course not considered as divinely inspired by Protestants. The reader may to refer to my prior article <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2018/07/the-use-of-deuterocanonical-books-in.html" target="_blank">here</a> for evidence that the early Church regarded these books as Scripture long before the canon was formally defined at councils held at the end of the fourth century.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> This is my own observation, not Fr Cazanave's.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"> New Testament language about resurrection, as exemplified by the noun <i>anastasis </i>and the associated verb <i>anistēmi</i>, depicts it not as an act of creation <i>ex nihilo </i>but as a rising. The dead are therefore conceived of as compromised—fallen, prostrate, in a state analogous to "sleep"—but not as non-existent.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Since the creature loses its separate existence, its distinctness from God, after death, the notion of "total death for total resurrection" seems to border on pantheism and call into question the particularity of the human person. This is my observation, not the article's.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> I am following the transliterations as they are in the preprint version of the article.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Other Old Testament texts that imply an ontological continuation of the person after death include 1 Samuel 28:11-20, where a medium succeeds in summoning Samuel from beyond the grave, and 2 Maccabees 15:12-16, where Judas Maccabeus relates a dream in which two deceased saints, Onias the high priest and Jeremiah the prophet, offer prayers and encouragement in the Jews' battle for their city and law.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> For my own commentary on these and other passages, see my article, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/31901579/A_Systematic_Theological_Analysis_of_Mortalism_as_an_Evangelical_Position" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">A Systematic-Theological Analysis of Mortalism as an Evangelical Position</a>, as well as—on Luke 23:43—my more detailed article, "Today in Paradise? Ambiguous Adverb Attachment and the Meaning of Luke 23:43," <i>Neotestamentica 51 </i>(2017): 185-207.</li></ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-13795559456511750842021-08-01T18:50:00.000+02:002021-08-01T18:50:46.120+02:00The Church as Spiritual Israel (4): Israel, Not-Israel, and the Olive Tree<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/01/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-1.html" target="_blank">first article</a> of this series, we called attention to a statement that early Christian apologist Justin Martyr made to a Jewish interlocutor in which he described the Church as "the true, spiritual Israel." We undertook to investigate whether the idea of the Church as Israel in a spiritual sense goes back to the New Testament, with particular attention to the Apostle Paul. We recognised the sensitivity of this matter in view of the subsequent painful history of Christian persecution of Jews, but nonetheless sought to take the New Testament evidence at face value and not engage in a fallacious appeal to consequences. In the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/01/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-2.html" target="_blank">second article</a>, we studied three passages from Galatians (3:6-29; 4:21-31; 6:16), finding that this early Pauline letter does indeed lay the foundation for an ecclesiology that identifies the Church, spiritually speaking, with Israel. In the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/04/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-3-carnal.html" target="_blank">third article</a>, we went further afield and found evidence of a Pauline "spiritual Israel" concept in 1 Corinthians 10:18, Philippians 3:3, and Romans 2:28-29.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this final article, we turn our attention to the only passage in Paul's letters—indeed, in the entire New Testament—that treats at length the subject of where Israel fits into God's purpose in the wake of the Messiah's founding of a new eschatological community. This passage is Romans 9-11, and is far too rich and complex for a single blog article to do it justice. However, by looking at a few texts within this great section of Paul's greatest letter, we hope to offer some insight into Paul's spiritualisation of Israel and where this leaves ethnic Israel in his theology.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Romans 9:1-8</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While Paul does not explicitly give the reason for the "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" that he refers to (Rom. 9:2 NRSV), it is clear from the context that he is acknowledging that—already by the late 50s C.E.—the Christian message has been largely rejected by the Jewish people. He seeks to show, therefore, that rather than God's failure (9:6), this sad reality is part of God's ingenious and merciful plan of salvation—a plan that will have him extolling God's wisdom by the end of the section (11:33).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In Romans 9:3, Paul describes the Jews as his "kindred according to the flesh," using the phrase <i>kata sarka </i>that we have seen previously to stand in implicit contrast with <i>kata pneuma</i>, "according to the spirit." Given that Paul frequently calls his Roman addressees "brothers," goes without saying that he thinks of believers in Christ (regardless of ethnicity) as his kindred <i>kata pneuma</i>. In 9:4-5, Paul lists the privileges that had been granted to the Jewish people, and he begins simply with, "They are Israelites." This reinforces the inference we drew previously from 1 Corinthians 10:18: while the Church may be spiritual Israel, this does not mean ethnic Israel is now nothing. All ethnic Jews are Israelites <i>kata sarka</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Yet, in Romans 9:6, we have this remarkable statement: "not all who are of Israel are Israel" (NABRE). This sounds self-contradictory, until we realise that Paul is using the term "Israel" in two different ways. It could be glossed, "not all who are of Israel <i>according to the flesh </i>belong to Israel <i>according to the spirit</i>."<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-1">1</a></sup> This basic sense is confirmed by Paul's synonymous parallelism: "nor are they all children of Abraham because they are his descendants". Paul then quotes Genesis 21:12 to prove this point, and explains the nature of the distinction he has introduced: there are "children of the flesh" and "children of the promise," i.e. "children of God" (language already discussed under Galatians 3-4).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Most scholars agree that Paul is making a distinction <i>within ethnic Israel</i>, between those who are Israelites <i>kata sarka </i>only and those who are Israelites <i>kata sarka </i>and <i>kata pneuma</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-2">2</a></sup> Strictly speaking, Gentiles are not in view in Romans 9:1-13. Yet, as Jason A. Staples observes, he does not restrict the meaning of "Israel" to Jews here,<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-3">3</a></sup> and we have seen clear evidence from elsewhere in Paul's writings that he does consider Gentile Christians to be part of Israel <i>kata pneuma</i>. Michael J. Cook therefore infers the following unstated corollary from Romans 9:6b:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>many ethnically descended from Israel now happen not to belong to the Israel of God's promise, <i>while many others not ethnically descended from Abraham do indeed belong!</i><sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-4">4</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Romans 9:23-26</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What is implicit in Romans 9:1-13 becomes explicit later in the chapter. The Gentiles are introduced into the argument in v. 24, where he describes the objects of God's mercy as "us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" (NRSV). Paul again explicitly refers to the Gentiles in v. 30: "What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith..." (NRSV) In the intervening verses, he quotes several biblical texts with minimal commentary. Especially intriguing for our purposes are the quotations from Hosea 2 in Romans 9:25-26. Immediately after the statement about the called-ones being "not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles," Paul introduces the quotation with the words, "As indeed he says in Hosea..." This suggests that the quotation from Hosea is cited as scriptural proof of the statement that the objects of mercy—the aforementioned children of God or spiritual Israel—<i>include Gentiles</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Paul's quotation from Hosea is made up of a paraphrase of Hosea 2:23 and a nearly verbatim quotation from Hosea 1:10:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>As indeed he says in Hosea, 'Those who were not my people I will call "my people," and her who was not beloved I will call "beloved." And in the very place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," there they shall be called children of the living God.' (Romans 9:25-26 NRSV)</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Battle notes that there is near-universal scholarly agreement that, in its original context, the oracle of Hosea 1-2 "has literal, national Israel in view—particularly, the ten northern tribes."<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-5">5</a></sup> The oracle foretells how God will have mercy on the disobedient northern kingdom and reunify his people. Pablo T. Gadenz notes that there are three scholarly positions on how Paul has understood these lines from Hosea: (1) Paul applies the oracle to the disobedient Israelites of his own day; (2) Paul applies the oracle to Christian believers, both Jewish and Gentile; (3) Paul applies the oracle to Gentile Christians.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-6">6</a></sup> In my view, the Gentiles are definitely in view: the statement about the call of the Gentiles in v. 24 requires biblical substantiation, and the phrase <i>hōs kai</i> at the beginning of v. 25 can be understood as linking the statement to its biblical proof.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">However, it seems unlikely that Paul would have spiritualised the ethnic language of Hosea 1-2 in its entirety and simply equated references to "Israel" here as Gentiles who are spiritual Israelites. As D. A. Carson notes, Hosea depicts Israel as disowned by God ("not my people") only to be restored to his favour. If God is prepared to restore disowned Israelites to the status of "my people,", what is to stop him from granting this status to Gentiles?<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-7">7</a></sup> Gadenz agrees that the phrase "not-people" "enables Paul to associate the salvation of the nations with the restoration of Israel."<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-8">8</a></sup> In Paul's understanding, the eschatological restoration and reunification of Israel prophesied by Hosea includes not only the re-inclusion of previously disowned portions of Israel, but also <i>the inclusion of the nations</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-9">9</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Romans 11:16-32</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Constraints of space require us to skip to the latter part of Paul's argument, where he uses his famous olive tree metaphor. Three important details of this passage will be considered: firstly, the identity of the "root" in vv. 16-18; secondly, the significance of the grafting metaphor in vv. 17-24; and thirdly, the meaning of "all Israel" in v. 26.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">At least four interpretations of the "root" can be found in the literature: (1) Israel, (2) the remnant consisting of Jewish believers in Christ (including the apostles), (3) Abraham/the patriarchs, or (4) Christ.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-10">10</a></sup> Arguments can be made in favour of all four options. For instance, Christ is referred to as "the root of Jesse" in Romans 15:12 and as "firstfruits" in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 (note equivalence of "firstfruits" and "root" in the parallelism of Rom. 11:16). Abraham features prominently in Romans 4 and 9 as ancestor and archetype of God's children, and it is on the patriarchs' account that disobedient Israel remains beloved (Rom. 11:28). However, these two individualising interpretations are difficult to reconcile v. 18, since the reminder "that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you" would then be too obvious to require emphasis. That the root is Israel seems to conflict with the apparent correspondence between the olive tree and Israel in the verses that follow. Hence, the "believing Jewish remnant" view is most plausible, with the nourishment provided by the root corresponding to the preaching of the (Jewish) apostles (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 3:5-6). The term "firstfruits" is used of individual (presumably Jewish) believers in Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:15.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">As for the olive tree itself, Israel is depicted as God's olive tree or plant in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g., Ps. 80:9; Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6). Given Paul's earlier distinction between Israel <i>kata sarka </i>and Israel <i>kata pneuma</i>, we should clarify that the tree represents not ethnic Israel but Israel <i>kata pneuma</i>. Ethnicity is denoted by the the natural/wild duality of the branches. Hence, the breaking off of natural branches refers to ethnic Israelites who are cut off from spiritual Israel due to unbelief in Christ, while the grafting in of wild branches refers to ethnic Gentiles who become part of spiritual Israel by faith in Christ.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-11">11</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This is all seemingly very good news for Gentile Christians and very bad news for non-Christian Jews. However, the matter is not so simple: the former group are warned against complacency while the latter are provided with hope. Philip F. Esler notes that the olive tree allegory is actually "most unflattering" in its depiction of Gentile believers, since Paul has reversed the normal horticultural practice of grafting cultivated olive branches onto a wild olive tree. In this case, wild branches are attached "contrary to nature" (v. 24) to the cultivated olive tree, where they "will not produce fruit, but...are actually parasitic upon its richness."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-12">12</a></sup> They should therefore "not become proud, but stand in awe" (v. 20).<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-13">13</a></sup> There also remains hope for the natural branches to be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In vv. 25-27 Paul reveals a "mystery," supported with scriptural quotations: </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, 'Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.' 'And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.' (NRSV)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> Once again, there are several distinct scholarly views on what "all Israel" means: (1) the church (both Jews and Gentiles saved during the present age); (2) the remnant of believing Jews (saved during the present age); (3) ethnic Israel (to be saved at the end of the present age). The prevailing view in modern scholarship is (3).<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-14">14</a></sup> I follow the majority view, but with a twist. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Verses 28-31 continue to refer by verbs and pronouns to the referents of vv. 25-27: "they are enemies of God for your sake...they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors...they have now been disobedient, in order that...they too may now receive mercy." It is thus clear that the people group referred to in vv. 25-27 are ethnic Israelites (descendants of the patriarchs) who are currently disobedient. Paul thus envisions some climactic expression of divine mercy upon ethnic Israel at the eschaton. This demonstrates conclusively that, <i>while Paul does spiritualise "Israel" so as to include Gentiles, he also retains a place for ethnic Israel </i>qua <i>Israel in God's plan.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It is therefore evident that "all Israel" in v. 26a <i>includes </i>disobedient ethnic Israel. But does this group exhaust its meaning? In my view, this phrase refers to the totality of "the Israel of God," Israel <i>kata pneuma</i>, the Israel of promise. It is inclusive of disobedient ethnic Israel—those who are the focus of vv. 26-31—but also of the full number of Gentiles who are "coming in," and the remnant of Israel who were <i>not </i>hardened (v. 25). "All Israel" finally encompasses <i>both Israel </i>kata pneuma <i>and Israel </i>kata sarka.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-15">15</a></sup> It should not, however, be universalised in an individual sense, as though to include every ethnic or spiritual Jew who ever lived. In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase "all Israel" is often used with the sense "representatives of all parts of Israel" (e.g., Joshua "summoned all Israel, including their elders, leaders, judges, and officers," Josh. 23:2).<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-16">16</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Our first major conclusion from this four-part study is that the letters of Paul do indeed reflect a concept like that described by Justin Martyr to Trypho: the Church, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles alike, are "spiritual Israel." Yet Gentile believers are part of God's Israel not because the Church has swept ethnic Israel aside and supplanted her, but because the Church is the eschatological continuation of what already existed within ethnic Israel. Gentile believers are spiritual Israelites by adoption. Our second major conclusion follows from this first one: Gentile Christians should not look down on ethnic Jews (including non-Christian ones), as they often have. Rather, they should regard them as kin, and look forward to their eschatological redemption by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the King of Israel.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> In fact, it is possible that "of Israel" (<i>ex Israēl</i>) here refers to Israel personally, i.e. the patriarch Jacob (cf. Num. 24:17 LXX). In that case, the sense would be, "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to the spiritual Israel."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> See, e.g., Charles M. Horne, "The Meaning of the Phrase 'And thus all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:26)," <i>Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 </i>(1978): 329; Michael Cranford, "Election and Ethnicity: Paul's View of Israel in Romans 9.1-13," <i>Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15 </i>(1993) :31.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> "What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with 'All Israel'? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25-27," <i>Journal of Biblical Literature 130 </i>(2011): 378. Notice also how the term "children of God," used in Romans 9:8 of <i>elect </i>Israelites, is used of all believers in Romans 8:14-17.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> "Paul's Argument in Romans 9-11," <i>Review & Expositor 103 </i>(2006): 96, emphasis added.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> John A. Battle, Jr., "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26," <i>Grace Theological Journal 2 </i>(1981): 117.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> <i>Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles: Pauline Ecclesiology in Romans 9-11</i> (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 102-103.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> "1 Peter," in <i>Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament</i>, ed. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1032.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Gadenz, <i>Called from the Jews and from the Gentiles</i>, 108-109.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Notice how, in a similar way, Paul appears to interpret Isaiah 65:1-2 in Romans 10:20-21 as a positive statement about the Gentiles <i>and </i>a negative statement about Israel, whereas in the Isaianic context, both verses are negative statements about Israel.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> See survey of views and their proponents in Svetlana Khobnya, "'The Root' in Paul's Olive Tree Metaphor (Romans 11:16-24)," <i>Tyndale Bulletin 64 </i>(2013): 259-61.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> J. C. T. Havemann, "Cultivated Olive - Wild Olive: The Olive Tree Metaphor in Romans 11:16-24," <i>Neotestamentica 31</i> (1997): 87-106.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> "Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation: The Meaning of the Olive-Tree Image in Romans 11," <i>Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 </i>(2003): 122-24.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> Paul, in fact, seems to be opposing some Gentile Christians who seem to believe that the Church has simply replaced Israel without remainder as the people of God (Douglas J. Moo, <i>The Epistle to the Romans </i>[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 704).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> So Christopher Zoccali, "'And so all Israel will be saved': Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship," <i>Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 </i>(2008): 290.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> cf. Staples, "Fresh Look at Romans 11:25-27," 376-387.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> See, similarly, Judg. 20:34; 1 Sam. 3:20; 25:1; 2 Sam. 17:11; 1 Kgs 4:7; 1 Chr. 13:5.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-21991428574913258682021-06-07T22:30:00.000+02:002021-06-07T22:30:15.827+02:00Review of "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound," by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">My blog has remained dormant for some time mainly because I have been busy with a larger work: a detailed review of and response to a work of unitarian apologetics by Sir Anthony Buzzard and the late Charles Hunting. It is not a new book (published 1998), but I had not read it until Anthony kindly mailed me a copy earlier this year. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then rebuttal must be a close second: it indicates that the work was worthy of careful study. I hope that readers will find this a useful contribution to the ancient and still-ongoing theological debate concerning the nature of the Christian God.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/Farrar_Review_and_Response_Buzzard_Hunting_Trinity_07.06.2021.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Link to download (PDF)</span></a></div>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-84024834523297323452021-04-03T08:20:00.005+02:002021-04-06T18:07:43.836+02:00The Church as Spiritual Israel (3): Israel kata sarka, Spiritual Circumcision, and Inward Jewishness<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/01/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-2.html" target="_blank">previous article</a> looked at Paul's Letter to the Galatians, which deals with the interface between the Church and Judaism as its primary focus. By contrast, Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth does not deal with matters pertaining to the Jews or the Jewish laws at any length. Nevertheless, there is a passage within the letter that uses a phrase—albeit only in passing—that is highly significant for the subject of "The Church as Spiritual Israel."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>1 Corinthians 10:18: Israel <i>kata sarka</i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul alludes to some of the events that befell ancient Israel as recorded in the Pentateuch, citing them as moral examples: "These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come" (v. 11).<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-1">1</a></sup> In verse 18, having moved on from the historical examples to the subject of idolatry, Paul poses a question: "Consider Israel according to the flesh (<i>kata sarka</i>); are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-2">2</a></sup> That Paul uses the present tense here (in contrast to past tense in the biblical allusions in the preceding verses) suggests that he may be referring to the current sacrificial system practiced in Jerusalem.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-3">3</a></sup> What then does he mean by "Israel according to the flesh"? </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The Greek expression <i>kata sarka </i>occurs twenty times in the New Testament, all in the Pauline corpus.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-4">4</a></sup> In some instances the phrase has a negative moral connotation, as in Romans 8:4-13, where Paul warns his readers not to live <i>kata sarka</i>. In other cases, the phrase has no negative connotation, as in Romans 1:3, where Paul declares that God's Son is of David's seed <i>kata sarka</i>. However, in virtually every case, there is an explicit or implicit contrast between that which is <i>kata sarka </i>and that which is <i>kata pneuma </i>("according to the S/spirit").<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-5">5</a></sup> The common denominator of meaning is that <i>kata sarka </i>refers to carnal, earthly ways of being and acting, while <i>kata sarka </i>refers to spiritual, heavenly ways of being and acting.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-6">6</a></sup> Thus, "Israel according to the flesh" in 1 Corinthians 10:18 denotes those who belong to Israel merely in a carnal, earthly sense. Paul's implication—albeit unstated—is that there is also an "Israel according to the S/spirit," consisting of those who belong to Israel in a spiritual, heavenly sense—namely, believers in Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Just as Paul considers Israelites to be his "kin according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:5), so believers in Christ—whether Jewish or Gentile—are his spiritual kin. In Christ they are all, as we saw in the previous article, spiritual children of Abraham. As Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin writes, "Paul at one stroke was saying that the genealogical Israel, ‘according to the flesh,’ is not the ultimate Israel; there is an ‘Israel in the spirit.’"<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-7">7</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While Paul never explicitly refers to the Church as Israel in the Corinthian letters, there are hints that he understands the predominantly Gentile church at Corinth to be part of Israel in some sense.<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-8">8</a></sup> For instance, in 1 Corinthians 12:2, Paul reminds the readers of "when [they] <i>were</i> Gentiles" (<i>ethnē</i>).<i> </i>Some translations render the word as "pagans" here, but while the idolatry and unbelief of the nations is certainly in view, "Gentiles" is still the literal sense. In 1 Corinthians 10:1, Paul introduces the discussion of Israelite history as concerning "<i>our </i>ancestors," implicitly including the Corinthians among the Israelite progeny. In 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul describes the immorality "among you" as of a kind "not even found among the Gentiles (<i>ethnē</i>)." It appears, then, that in Paul's thought, Gentile believers are no longer ontologically Gentile except "according to the flesh." At a higher ontological level—<i>kata pneuma</i>—they are Israelites.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-9">9</a></sup> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Philippians 3:3: "We are the Circumcision"</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The ancient rite of circumcision is so integral to Jewish identity that Paul can use the terms "the circumcision" and "the uncircumcision" to denote Jews and Gentiles respectively (see, e.g., Romans 3:30; 4:9-12; 15:8; Gal. 2:7-12; Eph. 2:11; Col. 4:11). In Philippians 3:2-3, however, Paul writes the following bold words:</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh (NRSV)</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It appears that Paul is taking this identifying label for Jews, "the circumcision," and applying it to believers in Christ, <i>including Gentiles</i>. If so, there is little doubt that Paul thinks of Gentile believers as spiritual Jews. Circumcision is spiritualised in Romans 2:28-29 (to be discussed below) as well as in Colossians 2:11-12, where baptism is described as "the circumcision of Christ." Moreover, some Pauline references to physical circumcision seem to be pejorative about the practice seen as an end in itself, such as Galatians 5:11-12 (where Paul suggests that circumcision advocates ought to castrate themselves) and Ephesians 2:11 (where the writer emphasises that circumcision "is done in the flesh with hands").<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-10">10</a></sup> In Philippians, too, circumcision is described in terms of "mutilation" of the flesh and putting confidence in the flesh, in contrast to "worship in the Spirit of God" (note, once again, the <i>sarka/pneuma </i>contrast).</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While most scholars take the "we" in the expression "We are the circumcision" (<i>hēmeis... esmen hē peritomē</i>) to be the Church,<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-11">11</a></sup> there are exceptions. Lionel J. Windsor, for instance, argues that "we" refers not to "Paul <i>along with all of his Philippian addressees</i>," but to "<i>Paul and Timothy</i>, as Jewish teachers of Gentiles."<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-12">12</a></sup> In support of Windsor's interpretation, a first-person plural pronoun does occur in Philippians 3:17 that appears to refer to Paul and Timothy ("the example you have in us"). However, a collective noun like <i>hē peritomē</i> is unlikely to be used of just two people. Timothy is a co-addressor of the letter (Phil. 1:1) and is favourably described in 2:19-24. However, between 2:19-24 and 3:2-3, Paul discusses another minister, Epaphroditus, who was probably a Gentile (given that his name derives from the Greek goddess Aphrodite). Thus, the immediate context gives no indication that the words "We are the circumcision" are confined to Paul and Timothy. Like the first-person plural constructions later in the chapter (3:15-16, 3:20), Paul uses "we" in v. 3 to bring his audience onto equal footing with himself, despite his own impressive Jewish pedigree (3:5-6).</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Since Paul's fairly harsh words in Philippians 3:2-3 could easily be misapplied in an anti-Semitic way, Stephen E. Fowl offers an important reminder:</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>Paul’s claim, ‘we are the circumcision,’ is not designed to contrast a true circumcision, associated with Christianity, with a now superseded Judaism, a false circumcision. Rather, Paul’s claim situates the Philippian believers already within the Abrahamic covenant apart from physical circumcision… In a sense, then, Paul’s claim might be recast as ‘we are already the circumcision – there is nothing else we need to do.’<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-13">13</a></sup></blockquote></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Romans 2:28-29: The Inward Jew</b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The third text to be discussed in this article in connection with Paul's spiritualisation of Israel is Romans 2:28-29. Whereas 1 Corinthians 10:18 (implicitly) spiritualises the term "Israel," and Philippians 3:3 spiritualises the term "the Circumcision," Romans 2:28-29 spiritualises the term "Jew." As in Philippians 3, Paul does so by spiritualising circumcision, that fundamental identity marker of Jewish males. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The paragraph from Romans 2:17-29 opens with Paul addressing one who calls himself a Jew. Most commentators believe that Paul is interacting with a hypothetical Jewish interlocutor to demonstrate that physical circumcision and instruction in Torah cannot save him and that true Jewishness is defined in terms of the heart, not the foreskin.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-14">14</a></sup> This interpretation is reflected in most translations of Romans 2:28-29, such as the NRSV:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote>28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The consensus view has been challenged, however, by scholars such as Matthew Thiessen and Rafael Rodriguez. Thiessen argues that Paul's interlocutor in this passage is not a Jew but a proselyte, a "so-called Jew,"<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-15">15</a></sup> and that Paul disagrees with him "not because he has redefined Jewishness, but because he does not believe that a gentile can actually become a Jew."<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-16">16</a></sup> He notes that the usual translation requires one to add important words that are not present in the Greek and, following Arneson, he offers the following alternative translation:</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">28 For it is not the outward Jew, nor the outward circumcision in the flesh, 29 but the hidden Jew, and the circumcision of the heart in spirit and not in letter, whose praise [is] not from humans but from God.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-17">17</a></sup> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If this translation is correct, the focus of the text shifts from Jewishness and circumcision to divine approval. One point in favour of the latter reading is that in Paul's questions that immediately follow, "What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?" he appears to revert back to the standard ethnic definition of "Jew," which would be odd if he has just redefined the term so as to <i>deny </i>the label "Jew" to the physically circumcised who do not obey God from the heart. Thus, I think that Arneson's translation is preferable to the NRSV.<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-18">18</a></sup> Paul is not saying that a circumcised, Torah-observant Israelite is <i>not a Jew; </i>he is introducing a new kind of Jewishness, an internal, spiritual kind, that he contrasts with a (merely) external Jewishness.<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-19">19</a></sup> This then coincides with the Abraham's children <i>kata pneuma </i>vs. <i>kata sarka </i>and the Jerusalem above vs. the present Jerusalem in Galatians 3-4, and with the implied Israel <i>kata pneuma </i>vs. "Israel <i>kata sarka</i>" in 1 Corinthians 10. <i>Contra </i>Thiessen, Paul clearly does assert in Romans 2:29 that a Gentile can become a Jew, albeit a "hidden" or "inward" one.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the previous article and the present one, we have seen abundant evidence from four of Paul's letters (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, and Romans) that Paul spiritualised the concept of Israel, the elect people of God, and so understood the Church—Gentiles included—to be Israel according to the Spirit (though he never explicitly uses this term). Importantly, in spiritualising Israel, Paul was not abandoning or denigrating Israel according to the flesh, the ethnic group to which he himself belonged. The spiritualisation of Israel does, however, raise the question of where ethnic Israel, the children of Abraham <i>kata sarka</i>, the outward Jews, fit into the purpose of God. This is a question to which Paul turns in one long and rich passage—Romans 9-11—that will be the subject of the fourth and final article in this series.</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Bible translations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the NRSV.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> This translation follows the NRSV except that the words <i>Israēl kata sarka </i>are translated literally here as "Israel according to the flesh," whereas the NRSV translates "the people of Israel." The NRSV translators are seeking dynamic rather than formal equivalence here, but as Bruce Hansen points out, the NRSV translation "obscures Paul’s rhetorical move in calling [the Corinthian believers] ‘Israel according to the flesh’, a move that implicitly interjects the question of whether there might be another way of viewing Israel" (<i>'All of You are One': The Social Vision of Gal 3.28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11</i> [London: T&T Clark, 2010], 116 n. 26).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> 1 Corinthians was certainly written well before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., probably in the late 50s.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Rom. 1:3, 4:1, 8:4, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 9:3, 9:5, 1 Cor. 1:26, 10:18, 2 Cor. 1:17, 5:16 (twice), 10:2, 10:3, 11:18, Gal. 4:23, 4:29, Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> This contrast is explicit in Romans 1:3-4, 8:4-5, 12-13, and Galatians 4:29 (the latter of which was discussed in the previous article).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> An interesting observation can be made about the occurrence of <i>kata sarka </i>in Romans 4:1. Most translations render this verse along the lines of the NRSV ("What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?"). Richard B. Hays, however, offers a persuasive argument that this text would be better understood as, "What shall we say then? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?" ('"Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?" A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,' <i>Novum Testamentum</i> <i>27 </i>(1985): 76-98.) It would then be understood as a rhetorical question that expects the answer "No!" Abraham is the father of all who are faithful, including the uncircumcised, according to promise (Rom. 4:11-18).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> 'Paul and the Genealogy of Gender,' <i>Representations 41 </i>(1993): 8.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> For evidence that the Corinthian church was largely Gentile in composition, see Paul Kariuki Njiru, <i>Charisms and the Holy Spirit's Activity in the Body of Christ: An Exegetical-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 12,4-11 and Romans 12,6-8</i> (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002), 27-28.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Andy Cheung asserts that "There does not seem to be any linguistic or exegetical reason for inferring the existence of an 'Israel according to the Spirit'" from 1 Corinthians 10:18 ('Who is the "Israel" of Romans 11:26?' in <i>The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supersessionism</i>, ed. Calvin L. Smith<i> </i>[rev. ed.; Broadstairs: King's Divinity Press, 2013], 129). However, Cheung's brief analysis of this passage does not take into account the broader "Israelisation" of the Corinthian believers in 1 Corinthians, or the wider use of the phrase <i>kata sarka </i>and its contrast with <i>kata pneuma</i>, particularly in Galatians 4:23-29.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Of course, I am not suggesting that Paul was against physical circumcision; he was against regarding it as an end in itself, or something that should be imposed on Gentiles.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> For example, Mikael Tellbe, 'The Sociological Factors behind Philippians 3.1-11 and the Conflict at Philippi,' <i>Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 </i>(1994): 101; Darrell J. Doughty, 'Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3.2-21,' <i>New Testament Studies 41 </i>(1995): 109-110; Andries H. Snyman, 'A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians 3:1-11,' <i>Neotestamentica 40 </i>(2006): 270; and most commentators</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> <i>Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul's Jewish Identity Informs his Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans</i> (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 53-55; italics original.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> <i>Philippians </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 147-48.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> "It is clear that in these verses Paul is in some sense denying the name of Jew to those who are only outwardly Jews and not also secretly and inwardly... Paul is using 'Jew' in a special limited sense to denote the man who in his concrete human existence stands by virtue of his faith in a positive relation to the on-going purpose of God in history... [but this] should not be taken as implying that those who are Jews only outwardly are excluded from the promises" (C. B. Cranfield, <i>A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans </i>[2 vols.; London: T&T Clark, 1975], 1:175-76); Romans 2 "emerges as a continual diatribal accusation against the Jew who defines himself or herself in terms of possession of the law and (falsely in Paul's eyes) rests confidence therein. By the end of the passage (v 29), Paul will have totally redefined the 'true Jew'" (Brendan Byrne, <i>Romans </i>[Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996], 96); "The chapter climaxes with the assertion that being an ethnic Jew and physically circumcised is insignificant (2:28-29). What matters is being a Jew internally and experiencing the circumcision of the heart" (Thomas R. Schreiner, <i>Romans </i>[Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998], 148); "Paul here redefines membership in God's people in terms of religious commitment and not in terms of physical descent or ethnic ethos... It follows from this that Gentiles who <i>keep </i>the law (even unwittingly) are inwardly true Jews (2:26). Paul locates membership in the people not in external ritual but in the orientation of the heart and the actions that flow from that orientation" (Luke Timothy Johnson, <i>Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary </i>[Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001], 43).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Rodriguez states that "The choice between an actually Jewish interlocutor in Rom 2:17-29 and an ethnically-gentile-religiously-Jewish interlocutor will prove to be the fork in the road for our reading of Romans as a whole" (<i>If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul's Letter to the Romans </i>[Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014], 51. He summarises Romans 1:18-2:29 as "Paul's comments for (or to) three types of gentiles: (i) the depraved immoral pagan (1:18-32); (ii) the elitist moralizing pagan (2:1-16); and (iii) the gentile proselyte to Judaism (2:17-29)... In contrast to these stock gentile <i>personae</i>, Paul will instruct his Roman readers to be gentiles who worship the Creator God of Israel without assuming Israel's obligations under Torah. To this point, Paul has not said anything negative about Jews" (<i>If You Call Yourself a Jew</i>, 61). I am not persuaded that Paul's interlocutor in 2:17-29 is a proselyte rather than an actual Jew. For instance, in Romans 2:24, Paul paraphrases Isaiah 52:5 as, "Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles"; but Isaiah 52:4-5 is clearly talking about Israel, so this source would not apply to a proselyte who (according to this interpretation of Paul's argument) merely calls himself a Jew and is not really one. Moreover, in Romans 3:9, Paul asserts, "we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin." Yet, if (as Rodriguez claims) the addressee in 2:17-29 is a Gentile proselyte, then Paul has not yet brought any charge against Jews placing them under the domination of sin. Another problem is that Rodriguez's interpretation hinges on the assumption (unstated in the text) that the clincher in Paul's argument against the proselyte is that he has violated the Torah by not being circumcised <i>on the eighth day</i>, as the Torah prescribes, and thus—like Ishmael—his circumcision is of no benefit. However, this argument overlooks that Abraham himself was not circumcised on the eighth day, but at age 99 (Gen. 17:23-24)! Moreover, if Paul regarded adult circumcision as a transgression of Torah, why would he have circumcised Timothy, as Acts 16:3 states he did?</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> 'Paul's Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17-29,' <i>Novum Testamentum 56 </i>(2014): 390.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> Quoted in Thiessen, 'Paul's Argument,' 377.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> A literal rendering of the Greek text (following NA28) would be: "Not for the one outwardly a Jew is nor outwardly-in-the-flesh circumcision, but the one secretly a Jew, and circumcision of heart in spirit not letter, of whom the praise is not of men but of God." A key syntactic question is what the verb <i>estin </i>("is") modifies in v. 28. According to the NRSV translation, it modifies <i>Ioudaios</i>; thus something like "For the outward one <i>is not a Jew...</i>" However, the alternate translation understands <i>estin </i>to modify the last part of v. 29: "For it is not the one outwardly a Jew... of whom the praise is not of men but of God." The word order of the Greek is not determinative; this syntactic ambiguity can only be resolved by close attention to the context.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Andy Cheung argues that it is erroneous to infer from Romans 2:28-29 that "anybody, Gentile or Jew, who finds faith in Christ is therefore a Jew inwardly"; rather, Paul "is restricting the traditional definition of a Jew to an ethnic Israelite who has faith in Christ" ('Who is the "Israel" of Romans 11:26?', 132). However, the notion that Romans 2:28-29 is exclusively concerned with ethnic Israelites runs afoul of the context. In the preceding verses, Paul is clearly concerned with the physically uncircumcised, i.e. Gentiles (vv. 26-27). It follows that the category of inward Jews, whose circumcision is of the heart, includes Gentiles.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.369078833509256 -16.7321947 -5.4806581664907483 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-48202225505024762532021-02-15T02:40:00.010+02:002021-02-15T03:06:53.522+02:00The Burke-Buzzard Devil Debate<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I watched with interest the recent online debate on the topic, <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No87xbZ2_CM" target="_blank">Are Satan & Demons Personal Beings?</a> </i>between Sir Anthony Buzzard (Restoration Fellowship) and Jonathan Burke (Christadelphian). The topic has been a primary interest of mine over the past two decades—largely due to my Christadelphian background—and the question itself is one on which I have changed my mind (from 'No' to 'Yes') during that period. Sir Anthony (henceforth AB) has been an important influence, as it was his essay, <i><a href="https://focusonthekingdom.org/articles_/satan.htm" target="_blank">Satan, the Personal Devil</a> </i>that led me to first think critically about the Christadelphian view that I had hitherto been taught. Jonathan (henceforth JB) has been an interlocutor of mine over the years, mainly in online correspondence, Facebook discussions, and blog articles, but also in a published exchange in the journal <i>Svensk Exegetisk </i><span style="text-align: left;"><i>Årsbok</i></span>.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a href="#footnote-1" rel="footnote">1</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this article I am not going to give an exhaustive commentary on the debate, but offer some impressions based on notes I jotted down while watching the debate live. First, I must heartily commend the participants—the moderator, Tracy (whose surname is unfortunately unknown to me), and the two debaters—for a civil and amicable discussion. It was, in fact, a model of decorum: no interrupting, talking over each other, snide remarks, bickering, etc. Both debaters expressed their personal respect for the other and emphasised the common ground they hold on other theological topics (being both unitarian restorationists).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The format of the debate consisted of a brief opening statement from each side, followed by a 40-minute discussion where the two debaters would ask each other questions, followed by a brief closing statement from each side, and lastly a Q&A session where the moderator pulled up audience questions from the chat. Before getting into the content, a comment on the big picture. The question, "Are Satan & Demons Personal Beings?" is a theological one; it was not phrased at a purely exegetical level (such as, "Does the Bible Portray Satan & Demons as Personal Beings?") Nevertheless, the content of the debate was largely exegetical. AB had almost nothing to say about the theological significance of his "Yes" answer, even when pressed by JB. For his part, JB commented briefly on what he sees as some theological and ethical problems with the "Yes" view. Given that personhood is a complex philosophical concept, and that the term "personal beings" (as we moderns understand it) does not occur in Scripture, one might have expected both sides to offer, or better yet agree on, a definition of "personal beings" up front.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a href="#footnote-2" rel="footnote">2</a></sup> Otherwise, how do we know both sides are answering the same question?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Opening Statements</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In JB's opening statement, he begins by appealing for "hermeneutical consistency." What he means is that, given the <i>unitarian </i>belief system shared by both sides, biblical texts about Satan and demons should be interpreted in a way consistent with how unitarians interpret challenging texts on other topics, such as Christology and hell. (This is, of course, problematic for audience members who do not share the unitarian belief system, but perhaps I was the only viewer who faced that problem.) JB poses the rhetorical question whether a unitarian belief system is compatible with an "autonomously powerful evil Satan," or whether such a being would be tantamount to a second god. This challenge extends equally to Christian orthodoxy, in that an "autonomously powerful evil Satan" would equally undermine classical Trinitarian monotheism. The answer to the conundrum, of course, is that the Church does not teach, and has never taught, that Satan is "autonomously powerful." The Church has always taught that Satan is a mere creature, specifically an angel, who therefore exercises no more power than God allows him.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a href="#footnote-3" rel="footnote">3</a></sup> Since this is also AB's well-known position, JB's opening salvo amounts to a strawman. To his credit, toward the end of the debate, JB batted down another caricature of classical Christian doctrine on the Devil, when he objected to a Q&A question suggesting that belief in the Devil could be used to excuse any sin, per "the Devil made me do it."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The rest of JB's opening statement focused on issues of "socio-cultural context," "scholarly literature," and "New Testament satan & demons." He asserted the need for consistency of interpretation across both testaments, and stated that in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature, terms like <i>satanas/satan </i>are used of the inclination to sin, an obedient angel, and as a common noun, while <i>diabolos </i>is used as a common noun and of humans, and other terms such as 'the evil one' and 'the tempter' do not occur at all. He makes the factually incorrect assertion that <i>diabolos </i>always occurs with the article.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a href="#footnote-4" rel="footnote">4</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Turning to scholarship, JB claims that scholars have abandoned the idea that Satan and demons appear in the OT, claims that scholars propose various perspectives on Jesus' wilderness temptation (whether a visionary experience, symbolic description, dramatisation, or personal temptation), and claims that scholars say Jesus didn't share his contemporaries' belief in demons. This is not the place to engage at length with JB's citations; interested readers can refer to some of <a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/" target="_blank">my writings</a> for comprehensive engagement with scholarly literature on this subject. However, given that the scholarly literature is an area where much of the audience probably had little knowledge, it was JB's duty to mention the weight of scholarly opinion both for <i>and against</i> his own positions. Instead, he cited only literature that agreed with him, leaving the audience with a skewed idea of scholarly opinion. I will just comment on one instance. On a slide on "Jesus' Views," JB cites only one source (in contrast to the previous slide, which had cited about a dozen). The slide leaves the audience with the impression that JB's ideas about Jesus' views on demonology are well-supported in scholarship. In fact, not only is the opposite true,<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a href="#footnote-5" rel="footnote">5</a></sup> but the source JB cites here (Ferngren) disagrees markedly with his position.<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a href="#footnote-6" rel="footnote">6</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">JB concludes his opening statement with a brief survey of New Testament passages on the Satan and demons. He focuses on a few texts that he believes are problematic for a personal view of the Satan, such as Matthew 16:23, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20, and 2 Corinthians 12:7. In fact, none of these texts are inconsistent with a personal view of the Satan.<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a href="#footnote-7" rel="footnote">7</a></sup> JB makes much of the absence of exorcisms in the Gospel of John,<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a href="#footnote-8" rel="footnote">8</a> </sup>offering an argument from silence.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In AB's opening statement, he emphasises that JB concedes that <i>satan </i>in the OT is external, not internal, which he regards as an important concession. He stresses the significance of the definite article in New Testament usage of the terms <i>diabolos </i>and <i>satanas </i>(<i>the </i>Devil and <i>the </i>Satan, not merely a devil or a satan). He argues that <i>proserchomai </i>("to come to") is an "astonishingly clear" word in Matthew 4:3, indicating the externality of the encounter between Jesus and the Devil. He helpfully draws a contrast between this narrative and Luke 12:19, where the rich fool really does have a conversation with himself, and this is clear from the text. He also contrasts the Satan and demons, which are consistently addressed as persons, with biblical usage of personification, such as for Wisdom. He asserts that Satan/Devil is the personal name of a personal evil being. AB—rightly in my view—criticises JB's claim that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written for uninformed novice Christians and John for more mature believers who could handle the full truth that demons do not exist.<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a href="#footnote-9" rel="footnote">9</a></sup> AB also criticises JB for adducing a lot of extra-biblical quotations. On this point, I would side with JB, as the latter is not quoting these texts as authoritative but in order to describe the historical context, the thought-world, from which the New Testament emanates, which is very helpful for correctly interpreting the meaning of New Testament terminology. The problem is that I do not think JB paints an accurate picture of Second Temple Jewish thought from the texts he quotes.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a href="#footnote-10" rel="footnote">10</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Direct Discussion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The direct discussion proceeded. It was not entirely clear to me whether the format was that the two debaters would take turn asking each other questions, or each had a certain time allocation to ask the other a battery of questions. Either way, it seemed to me as though AB asked a lot more questions of JB than the other way around. The first questions concerned the presence or absence of the <i>yetzer hara </i>("evil inclination") concept in the Old and New Testaments (since JB identifies the Devil in the wilderness temptation narratives as the <i>yetzer hara </i>operating within Jesus). AB pressed JB for an explicit equation of the Devil/Satan with the <i>yetzer hara </i>in Scripture; JB argued that the equation is implicit. AB asked JB how he understood the term "demons" in James 2:19; JB replied that it is an ironic reference to foreign gods.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a href="#footnote-11" rel="footnote">11</a></sup> There was some discussion of whether demons and their victims are distinguished in the Gospel exorcism narratives (which they are).<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a href="#footnote-12" rel="footnote">12</a></sup> AB offered another grammatical argument, namely that one who is addressed in the vocative is a person.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a href="#footnote-13" rel="footnote">13</a></sup> JB responded that his argument does not hinge on the grammatical details, but on whether the text is to be taken literally or figuratively. As evidence of the latter, he cited a Talmudic interpretation of a text from 2 Samuel in which the <i>yetzer hara </i>was inferred to be a character in the story.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a href="#footnote-14" rel="footnote">14</a></sup> AB noted that the Christadelphians' founders (John Thomas and Robert Roberts) understood Jesus' tempter to be external; JB countered that other Christadelphians of the time disagreed with them, and that their opinions are not sacrosanct. AB asked whether there is any leading commentator on Matthew who takes an internal view of the temptation. JB responded that some scholars read it as a visionary experience, dramatisation, etc.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a href="#footnote-15" rel="footnote">15</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">JB asked of AB why the New Testament does not use terminology for the Devil such as Mastema and Sammael that were used in other contemporaneous literature. AB countered that other such terms, such as Belial (2 Cor. 6:15) and Beelzebul (Matt. 10:25; 12:24-27 and parallels) <i>are </i>used.<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a href="#footnote-16" rel="footnote">16</a></sup> AB emphasised that there is no disagreement between the debaters on the evil in human nature; the difference is in whether the evil in human nature <i>is the Devil</i>. AB asked JB about the meaning of the verb <i>proserchomai</i>, used in Matthew 4:3 ("The tempter <b>came </b>and said to him," NRSV). JB was prepared with a slide showing that the verb can be used in a figurative sense, as in "a shudder <i>came over</i> me" (Shepherd of Hermas, <i>Visions </i>3.1.5). AB insisted that it is biblical usage of the word that matters; JB responded that the Bible doesn't use a different Greek from non-canonical literature of the time. On this point, I side with JB; however, AB was right to insist on the importance of <i>Matthew</i>'s use of the verb, especially as Matthew uses it again within the same pericope in an obviously literal fashion ("Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels <b>came</b> and waited on him," 4:11). In fact, JB's insistence on a figurative sense for <i>proserchomai </i>here reflects an inconsistency in his overall argument on the temptation narrative.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a href="#footnote-17" rel="footnote">17</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">JB asked whether teaching on Satan and demons is consistent throughout Scripture. AB responded that there is development in the concept, but that by the time we get to Revelation, we have a being who is "called" (indicative of a proper name) Devil and Satan. JB pressed AB on whether the NT understanding of Satan and demons (as he sees it) is in the OT; AB responded, "No, it is not."<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a href="#footnote-18" rel="footnote">18</a></sup> JB then cited commentators on Revelation who identify the language about the dragon/Satan as referring symbolically to the actions of Rome. In effect, then, the devil is Rome; Rome is the pre-eminent manifestation of that evil power. AB disagreed that the dragon is Rome, and asked what the beast is, if we make that identification? JB noted that the Evangelical scholar Beale concedes that, in Revelation, Satan is behind Rome. There seems to be a lack of precision here about the relationship between the dragon and Rome.<sup id="ref-footnote-19"><a href="#footnote-19" rel="footnote">19</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In what were probably JB's best moments of the debate, he pressed AB on the contemporary, practical significance of Satan and demons. He asked AB how he would distinguish Satanic temptation from internal temptation today, and AB responded that he had no idea, but it does not matter.<sup id="ref-footnote-20"><a href="#footnote-20" rel="footnote">20</a></sup> JB asked whether first-century Jews could tell if anyone was demon-possessed; AB replied that it doesn't matter, but Jesus could. JB then observed that Jesus never diagnosed anyone with demon-possession; AB responded that if "Come out of him" is not a diagnosis, what is?<sup id="ref-footnote-21"><a href="#footnote-21" rel="footnote">21</a></sup> JB asked whether there is exorcism today; AB was unsure.<sup id="ref-footnote-22"><a href="#footnote-22" rel="footnote">22</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Closing Statements</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div>
<div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">In JB's closing statement, he focused strongly on empirical and ethical arguments. For instance, he asked, "When you are tempted, does Satan come up to you?"<sup id="ref-footnote-23"><a href="#footnote-23" rel="footnote">23</a></sup> And, "Have you ever seen people demonically possessed?"<sup id="ref-footnote-24"><a href="#footnote-24" rel="footnote">24</a></sup> Working from Jesus' teaching on good and bad fruit in Matthew 7, JB points out that belief in Satan and demons has produced plenty of bad fruit (e.g., witch hunts, injuries incurred in botched exorcisms, failure to seek medical care due to belief in a supernatural cause),<sup id="ref-footnote-25"><a href="#footnote-25" rel="footnote">25</a></sup> but is unaware of any good fruit produced by these ideas.<sup id="ref-footnote-26"><a href="#footnote-26" rel="footnote">26</a></sup> JB concludes that temptation is fundamentally a matter of the human heart.<sup id="ref-footnote-27"><a href="#footnote-27" rel="footnote">27</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">AB's closing statement quoted at length from a scholar who observed that, given the clarity and emphasis with which the Synoptic Gospels affirm the reality of demon-possession and Jesus' exorcisms, the truth of these Gospels—and thus the truth of Christianity—are jeopardised if their testimony on this subject is false.<sup id="ref-footnote-28"><a href="#footnote-28" rel="footnote">28</a></sup> AB then reiterated his central claim, that if one pays close attention to the language and grammar of the biblical text, it speaks clearly about the reality of Satan and demons.</div><div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div id="demo-1"><b>Q&A</b></div><div id="demo-1"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For sake of space, I will not say much about the audience questions and debaters' answers, most of which pertained to the meaning of particular biblical passages about Satan or demons. Let me just comment briefly on <i>my </i>question, which was directed to JB:</div></div><div id="demo-1"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Septuagint translation of Job 1-2 and Zech 3 renders <i>hassatan</i> as <i>ho diabolos</i>. Is this the main source of the technical term <i>ho diabolos</i> that occurs dozens of times in the New Testament?</blockquote></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The moderator and both debaters spoke as though this question had largely been addressed by JB's observation—which AB conceded—that there is no single Satan or <i>diabolos </i>figure in the Old Testament. However, the point I was driving at was the following:</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(1) <i>hassatan</i> in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 (Hebrew Bible) is an external adversary (admitted by both sides). </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(2) <i>hassatan</i> in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 is translated in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version with <i>ho diabolos</i>. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(3) The Greek Septuagint was the version of Scripture used in most early Christian churches outside the Holy Land, including the earliest readers of the New Testament (which was also written in Greek). </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">(4) Therefore, when the earliest readers of the New Testament documents encountered the term <i>ho diabolos</i> in the text, <b>they were encountering a term familiar to them from Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 LXX</b>, and would accordingly have interpreted the figure as an external adversary.<sup id="ref-footnote-29"><a href="#footnote-29" rel="footnote">29</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">In post-debate correspondence, AB has acknowledged the force of this argument. Thus, I think the question still needs to be answered, because JB's view—for all his claims of consistency between the Testaments—posits a disconnect on the <i>diabolos</i>/Satan between Old and New Testaments, when in fact there is striking continuity.<sup id="ref-footnote-30"><a href="#footnote-30" rel="footnote">30</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Overall Analysis</b></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">I have no interest in adjudicating who "won" the debate on a personal level, and probably neither do the debaters. From my own studies of the topic, I have become convinced that the Scriptures testify clearly to the "personal" reality of the Satan and demons<sup id="ref-footnote-31"><a href="#footnote-31" rel="footnote">31</a></sup> (notwithstanding that belief in transcendent beings—and transcendent causes—is out of favour in the post-Enlightenment West). I believe that AB brought that clarity across successfully. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">As far as the exegetical part of the argument, I found AB's arguments to be simple yet forceful, and JB's to be convoluted and unconvincing. What stood out for me was that AB argued directly from the details of the text, from lexical meaning and from syntax. By contrast, JB's arguments tended to focus more on broader issues such as genre and alleged extra-biblical parallels from the "socio-cultural context," and less on what the biblical text actually says. JB's hermeneutical method features a willingness to infer figurative or ironic meanings when there is little or no warrant within the text for doing so. Consequently, his arguments run afoul of Ockham's Razor. For me, one of the most telling statements in the debate from JB was the following (beginning c. 43:27 in the YouTube video). After AB offered syntactic arguments for interpreting the demons as persons in the text (e.g., masculine participles), JB responded,</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Well the point is of course I'm not making my argument from grammar; I believe that it means what it says, that people actually understood that to be, for example, a demon being addressed...</div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">Thus, when demons are depicted in the Gospels as though persons, this apparently is the authors' meaning, and it is how their readers understood them. Yet, it is not the meaning <i>we </i>should draw, because the writers did not actually believe their own meaning, but merely accommodated their readers' ignorance. This is a startlingly bold claim to make, and it needs to be backed by compelling positive evidence, but it is not. </div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;">The same is true of JB's interpretation of the wilderness temptation accounts. I did not actually hear any point in the debate when JB defended his view exegetically. He asserted that the Devil here is the <i>yetzer hara</i>, the evil inclination, and that the genre of these accounts is not narrative, but something else that is figurative. Since the genre within the Synoptic Gospels as a whole is narrative, and since all three transition into and out of this pericope just as they do so many other episodes in the life of Jesus, and since they use the same kind of language that they use elsewhere to describe actual interpersonal encounters and dialogue, why should we conclude that these particular accounts follow a completely different genre? Something much more weighty is needed than centuries-later rabbinic parallels in which the <i>yetzer hara</i> is mentioned explicitly (rather than needing to be introduced as a gloss for <i>ho diabolos</i>). What is needed is positive evidence <i>from the text itself</i>. Yet not only is this evidence not forthcoming, but in my own experience, when JB is presented with evidence from the text that contradicts his position, he dismisses it as irrelevant, because his argument <i>is not about what the text says</i>.<sup id="ref-footnote-32"><a href="#footnote-32" rel="footnote">32</a></sup></div><div id="demo-1" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div id="demo-1"><div style="text-align: justify;">Perhaps not all Christadelphians will agree with JB's interpretations of key passages about the Devil and demons. However, Christadelphians should take note that JB has probably studied this topic more, and written about it more, than any other Christadelphian. He is an intelligent man, an able logician, and he has plumbed the depths for the best possible defence of the Christadelphian position. This has led him to move away from what the text actually says; and that should be concerning to any "Berean"-minded student of Scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">JB's strongest point in the debate was pressing AB on the contemporary significance and value of belief in Satan and demons. AB effectively shrugged off all such questions, and they are valid questions. The other important take-away from this debate was that both debaters were a model of decorum, setting a fine example for the rest of us on how Christians ought to conduct themselves when arguing matters of the faith.</div>
<ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Jonathan Burke, 'Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,' <i>Svensk Exegetisk </i><i style="text-align: left;">Årsbok 81 </i><span style="text-align: left;">(2016): 127-68; Thomas J. Farrar, '</span><span style="text-align: left;">Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,' </span><i>Svensk Exegetisk </i><i>Årsbok 83 </i>(2018): 156-91.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> This is true of other theological subjects, too. I am always amazed at how lengthy theological debates on the Trinity or the ontology of the Holy Spirit can run their course without either side ever giving a philosophically precise definition of the term "person."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> For scriptural passages showing that the Satan requires God's permission to act, and is aware of this, see, e.g., Job 1-2, Luke 4:6, Luke 22:31.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> JB states that the word always occurs in the form <i>the </i>diabolos. In fact, <i>diabolos </i>is anarthrous in 1 Chr. 21:1 LXX, Ps. 108:6 LXX, 1 Macc. 1:36, and Wis. 2:24. Within the LXX corpus, it occurs with the article only in Esther 7:4, 8:1, Job 1-2, and Zech. 3:1-2. All of these latter instances refer to the personal transcendent being that eventually became "the Devil," with the exception of those in Esther, where it refers to Haman. In grammatical terms, the uses of the article with <i>diabolos </i>in Esther 7:4, 8:1 LXX are cataphoric and anaphoric, respectively. Esther tells the king that her people are to be destroyed, but that she has hitherto kept silent, "For the slanderer (<i>ho diabolos</i>) is not worthy of the court of the king" (7:4). This creates dramatic effect, for the reader immediately wants to know who she is referring to, and this is precisely what the king asks in 7:5 ("Who is this who dared to do this deed?") Esther then identifies Haman as "this wicked one"; hence the article in 7:4 is cataphoric, with "the" slanderer referring to the specific slanderer that is to be identified in 7:6. Similarly, the article in 8:1 ("King Artaxerxes granted to Esther all that belonged to Haman the slanderer [<i>ho diabolos</i>]") is anaphoric, referring back to the slanderer introduced in 7:4 and identified in 7:6. Thus, far from being a precedent for applying <i>ho diabolos </i>to various referents in the NT despite the use of the article, this text represents a contrast. The occurrence of <i>ho diabolos </i>in the NT never elicits the question, "Who?" because it is assumed that the reader knows who is meant. By this time, <i>ho diabolos </i>had become a technical term for a specific personal being, probably by reading Job 1-2 LXX and Zech. 3:1-2 LXX together and inferring that the same being is in view.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> There is a scholarly consensus that Jesus and the Synoptic Evangelists believed in demons and in the efficacy of exorcism. For numerous quotations from scholarly literature, see pp. 11-16 of my online article, <a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf" target="_blank">'<i>When an unclean spirit goes out of a person': </i></a><i style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf" target="_blank">An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels</a>.</i></li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> JB summarises as Ferngren stating that "Jesus didn't share first century Palestinian demonology" and that "Gospels don't record either Jesus' or the gospel writers' explanation of demon possession." The level of support for JB's position conveyed by these statements is unremarkable. Ferngren does state, "The evidence...does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries" (Gary B. Ferngren, <i>Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity</i> [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009], 45), but this is very different from stating that Jesus had <i>no </i>demonology. In fact, the main differences that Ferngren highlights between Jesus and his contemporaries are (i) his method of exorcism, (ii) his personal authority over demons, and (iii) the careful distinction that Jesus and the Evangelists make between healings and exorcisms, and thus between disease and demon-possession. That the Gospels do not record Jesus' or the gospel writers' explanation of demon-possession in no way favours the view that Jesus or the gospel writers disbelieved in demon-possession. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus, not of demons. We would therefore not expect the Evangelists to explain the phenomenon of demon-possession, unless they believed that their readers needed such an explanation. Thus, the absence of such an explanation actually suggests that the Evangelists <i>assumed that their readers knew what demon-possession was</i>, and saw no need to correct or supplement their readers' understanding. Finally, Ferngren clearly affirms that the Evangelists believed in Satan and demons: "The frequency with which demons appear on the pages of the Gospels reflects the Evangelists' belief that the advent of Jesus's kingdom brought about a spiritual conflict with the forces of Satan. Jesus' exorcism of demons was one dimension of this conflict, which they viewed as 'a cosmic struggle in history to inaugurate the eschatological reign of God.'" (<i>Medicine and Health Care</i>, 45). Again, "Chapters 1 through 8 [of Mark] picture Jesus as a powerful miracle worker, through whom God, the Great Warrior, is undoing the evil brought about by Satan's control of the world. Hence in his frequent confrontations with demons Jesus repeatedly challenges the powers of darkness... there are several indications that neither Jesus nor the Evangelists believed that disease was ordinarily caused by demons... while the Gospel writers speak of Jesus's healing and exorcism as related aspects of his messiahship, they routinely distingiush between them... Exorcism and healing denoted different aspects of Jesus's messianic ministry, not a single act." (<i>Medicine and Health Care</i>, 45-46). Thus, Ferngren's view is broadly consistent with the scholarly consensus that Jesus and the Evangelists believed in demons.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> On Mark 8:33 (parallel to Matt. 16:23), see Thomas J. Farrar and Guy J. Williams, 'Diabolical Data: A Critical Inventory of New Testament Satanology,' <i>Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39</i>(1) (2016): 49-50 (preprint accessible <a href="https://www.academia.edu/27938432/Diabolical_Data_A_Critical_Inventory_of_New_Testament_Satanology_Journal_for_the_Study_of_the_New_Testament_2016_" target="_blank">here</a>). On 2 Corinthians 12:7 (where the phrase in question should be translated, 'angel of Satan'), see sources cited in Farrar and Williams, 'Diabolical Data,' 48 n. 35. On 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20, there is no difficulty once we appreciate that punishment is one of the Satan's God-given roles. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 5:5, given the Passover allusion, Paul is probably identifying the Satan with "the Destroyer" from the Passover narrative (Ex. 12:23; cf. 1 Cor. 10:10; further discussion in Farrar and Williams, 'Diabolical Data,' 54-56). On Acts 5:3-4, JB makes much in the debate on the parallelism between vv. 3 and 4. There is indeed a parallelism, whereby Ananias' act is described in v. 3 as "Why has the Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" and restated in v. 4 as "Why did you contrive this deed in your heart?" Both statements identify Ananias' heart as the locus of the temptation. One says that the Satan filled his heart, the other that Ananias contrived the deed in his heart. JB's inference is that "the Satan" = "contrived"; thus, the Satan is an internal impulse. However, it is equally plausible that the two statements are describing the same event from two different angles and at two different levels of causality. Ananias allowed the Satan to infiltrate his heart, and Ananias contrived the plan to lie about his donation. Not only is this latter explanation plausible, but it is much more consistent with the wider context of Luke-Acts, in which the Satan is depicted as an external being who converses with Jesus and departs from him (Luke 4:1-13), "falls from heaven" (Luke 10:18), "comes" and takes away God's Word from people's hearts (Luke 8:12), "enters into" Judas so as to tempt him (Luke 22:3), and "demands" (of God) to sift the disciples (Luke 22:31).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> On this, see Thomas J. Farrar, 'New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents in Second Temple Jewish Literature: A Religio-Historical Analysis,' <i>Journal of Theological Studies 70</i>(1) (2019): 66-67. Preprint can be accessed <a href="https://www.academia.edu/34892889/New_Testament_Satanology_and_Leading_Suprahuman_Opponents_in_Second_Temple_Jewish_Literature_A_Religio_Historical_Analysis" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> On this point, see my <a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf" target="_blank">‘When an unclean spirit goes out of a person,’</a> 25-28.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> For a detailed alternative account, see Farrar, 'New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents,' 31-57. Preprint can be accessed <a href="https://www.academia.edu/34892889/New_Testament_Satanology_and_Leading_Suprahuman_Opponents_in_Second_Temple_Jewish_Literature_A_Religio_Historical_Analysis" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> For a detailed analysis of this text, including a refutation of JB's view, see my article, <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2018/02/even-demons-believe-and-shudder.html" target="_blank">Even the Demons Believe and Shudder: Demonology in the Epistle of James</a></i>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> See <a href="https://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf" target="_blank">‘When an unclean spirit goes out of a person,’</a> 19-20.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> The vocative case indicates direct, second-person address. In modern English it does not come through in translation, but in the KJV is often conveyed by the word "O." Since it requires intelligence to understand speech, being addressed in the vocative is ordinarily an indication that the one addressed is a person. However, this is not universally the case. For instance, in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), impersonal objects such as mountains and hills are often addressed poetically in the vocative in the psalms and prophets (e.g., 2 Kingdoms [2 Samuel] 1:21; Ps. 67:16-17[68:15-16]).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> As a contextual argument, citing rabbinic literature is not particularly weighty. The Talmuds date from several centuries after Christ, so citing the Talmud in New Testament exegesis is roughly the chronological equivalent of citing Augustine of Hippo or other Church Fathers. Moreover, while the Talmuds contain many attributions to earlier rabbis, eminent Jewish scholars like Jacob Neusner have warned that it is methodologically invalid to accept these attributions uncritically.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Reading the temptation story as a visionary experience is no help to the "internal <i>yetzer hara</i>" view of the Devil. Matthew describes the Transfiguration event as a "vision" (<i>horama</i>, 17:9), but this does not mean that Moses and Elijah were projections of the apostles' inner psyches! Similarly, Luke refers to encounters with angels as visions (1:22; 24:23), and Acts describes "visions" in which people engage in dialogue with supernatural persons (angels or the Lord, e.g., Acts 9:10-16, 10:3-7, 10:10-17). "Dramatisation" is an unclear term; what is clear is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all weave this incident into their narrative like any other pericope, using similar transitions, pronouns, and verbs. They give the reader no indication whatsoever that this incident is of an entirely different genre and nature than all of the other incidents they record about Jesus.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> The broader point is that terminological parallels are less important than conceptual parallels. The NT writers show a clear consolidation toward using <i>ho diabolos </i>and <i>ho satanas </i>as the normative names or designations of the transcendent opponent, but there are striking <i>conceptual</i> parallels with other Second Temple Jewish texts that use other terminology. This is a central thesis of my <i>JTS </i>article, '<i>New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents' </i>(see esp. pp. 57-62). Preprint can be accessed <a href="https://www.academia.edu/34892889/New_Testament_Satanology_and_Leading_Suprahuman_Opponents_in_Second_Temple_Jewish_Literature_A_Religio_Historical_Analysis" target="_blank">here</a>.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> JB's overall argument seems to be that the temptation story is figurative <i>as a whole</i>, at the level of genre—hence his insistence, when confronted by the argument from the vocative, that his argument is not a grammatical one. In fact, when I made the argument from Matthew's use of <i>proserchomai </i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2014/11/who-tempted-jesus-in-wilderness-ten.html" target="_blank">previously</a> on my blog, JB insisted in <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20161123125139/http://berea-portal.com/the-temptation-of-christ-a-ten-point-idiosyncratic-interpretation/" target="_blank">his response</a> that this argument was irrelevant because of the genre of the passage ("such arguments hold no weight with the consensus of scholars who believe the temptation accounts are not historical narrative, and that the temptation itself was indeed figurative, symbolic, or visionary"). Yet now, in the debate, JB appears to be hedging his bets by insisting that the passage is figurative at the level of individual words—even if this means ignoring a consistent pattern of Matthean usage.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> I would agree, and it should come as no surprise, given the development from Old to New Testaments on so many other doctrines (Messiah, resurrection, Holy Spirit, angelology, etc.) The pithy saying attributed to St. Augustine is à propos here: "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Most commentators, ancient and modern, would agree that "the beast" in Revelation is Rome, given the precedent in Daniel whereby beasts represent earthly kingdoms (Dan. 7:23), and the political reality of Rome's ascendancy at the time Revelation was written. However, the beast and the dragon are clearly distinguished in Revelation, and their relationship is indicated in 13:2: "To [the beast] the dragon gave its own power and throne, along with great authority." Thus, the dragon—explicitly identified as the Devil and Satan in 12:9 and 20:2—is an entity that <i>empowers </i>Rome, and not Rome itself. Further evidence that we cannot make the equation Satan = Rome in Revelation is found in 2:9 and 3:9, where we find the expression "the synagogue of Satan." The synagogue of Rome? Obviously not; thus Satan is a power behind <i>both </i>Roman <i>and </i>Jewish opposition to the faithful. The best indication of the dragon's literal identity in Revelation (besides the names "Devil" and "Satan," which would already have been plenty clear to the original audience) is the description of war in heaven between "Michael and his angels" and "the dragon and its angels." Michael is not a symbol, but the name of an archangel (Jude 9), and thus his angels are also not symbols, but are actual angels. This implies that the dragon's angels are also actual angels, and that the dragon/serpent/Devil/Satan is also an angel.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> I would basically agree, and an analogy could be made to divine providence. How do we distinguish between providential vs. natural causes of events in our lives? If I asked God for wisdom, and I subsequently became wiser, how would I differentiate between my own efforts (e.g., study and meditation) vs. divine help? Clearly, we humans cannot—under ordinary circumstances—recognize and differentiate supernatural causes from natural ones.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> In fact, it is the narrators who diagnose individuals in the narrative as demon-possessed, just as they diagnose other individuals with leprosy, blindness, etc. Yet AB is correct, in that by performing exorcisms on persons identified by the narrator as demon-possessed, Jesus is clearly depicted as agreeing with the diagnosis.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> In fact, there is well-documented evidence of exorcisms today, and the Catholic Church to this day has priests who perform exorcisms, just as the apostles did. However, demon-possession is relatively rare, and the Church resorts to exorcism only when there is strong evidence of demonic possession and all ordinary psychiatric treatment methods have been exhausted.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> One might as well ask, "When you were baptized, did the Holy Spirit descend on you like a dove and a voice speak from heaven?" or, "When the Lord answers your prayers, does he do so by sending an angel to visit you?" If the answers are "No," does this imply that baptism is of no benefit, that the Lord does not answer prayer, or that his angels no longer minister to his people?</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> Since when has having personally seen something been a valid precondition for belief? Christianity is a religion of faith! Moreover, there is ample evidence that spirit-possession is a real phenomenon even today, though many of the anthropologists and psychologists who document it do not regard it as actual spirit-possession, due to their materialistic assumptions precluding this possibility.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> Witch hunts do not follow from belief in Satan and demons, but from other false and superstitious ideas. No well-informed ecclesiastical tradition or individual Christian today condones witch hunts. It is technically true that witch hunts would never have happened without belief in supernatural evil. However, it does not therefore follow that non-belief in supernatural evil is correct. If that argument were valid, then atrocities committed by people who believed they were doing God's will would be sufficient to justify atheism. Similarly, if one refrained from seeking medical care due to a belief in demons, this would reflect a false belief that medical care and exorcism are competing, mutually exclusive alternatives. In fact, the Church has always been at the forefront of medical care, and (as was mentioned in a previous footnote) resorts to exorcism only as a last resort. As for a severe injury received during an exorcism, I believe this is very rare. I would add that there are plenty of phony exorcists. I would further add that demon-possession is a dangerous phenomenon, as the biblical testimony itself describes spirits inducing their victims to injure or destroy themselves (Mark 5:5; 9:22). There is, consequently, some risk associated with an exorcism. There is also some risk associated with most medical treatments, so this is not exceptional.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> If people really do suffer from demon-possession and can be helped by exorcism, this is a clear and substantial "good fruit." For JB to dismiss this good fruit, he must first show that demon-possession is not real and thus that exorcism has no efficacy. But this is the very point under debate. Looking more broadly, most Christians would agree that having a sound theology of evil is helpful in the spiritual life, even if one cannot point to obvious instances where correctly believing in the Devil's existence brings concrete, practical benefit. However, this is true of many other theological ideas. What are the good fruit of belief in angels, for instance? It is not obvious; but we trust in God that every truth that he has revealed is beneficial to know. JB's "fruit" argument seems to be a misapplication of Jesus' message in Matthew 7:15-20 (which is actually about <i>prophets</i>, not their teachings). One might add that a "bad fruit" of non-belief in supernatural evil is that it requires very shoddy exegesis and hermeneutics to sustain, and once one begins to practice such, it may lead to errors in more fundamental areas of theology.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-27"><a href="#ref-footnote-27">27</a> Absolutely; and the human heart is by nature morally compromised. However, it can also be infiltrated by the Devil (e.g., Luke 8:12; Acts 5:3-4), which is not the same thing.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-28"><a href="#ref-footnote-28">28</a> This, I think, indirectly answers JB's question by identifying a "good fruit" of belief in Satan and demons: it reflects fidelity to the testimony of Scripture in an age where belief in the supernatural is dismissed by the dominant culture.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-29"><a href="#ref-footnote-29">29</a> Adding weight to this argument is the testimony of Justin Martyr. Writing around the 150s, Justin is the earliest extant Christian writer to quote directly from Job 1-2 and Zech. 3:1-2. When he does, he makes it clear that these passages are key source texts for the Christian idea of the devil (<i>Dialogue with Trypho </i>79.4, 103.5, 115-116). For further discussion of Justin's views, see Thomas J. Farrar, 'The Intimate and Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature,' <i>Journal of Early Christian Studies 26 </i>(2018): 543-44 (preprint accessible <a href="https://www.academia.edu/34890875/The_Intimate_and_Ultimate_Adversary_Satanology_in_Early_Second_Century_Christian_Literature_Journal_of_Early_Christian_Studies_" target="_blank">here</a>).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-30"><a href="#ref-footnote-30">30</a> This continuity is not removed by the concession that, from a grammatical-historical point of view, "the satan" in Job and Zechariah is not yet understood as a wicked being. Christian theological interpretation of the Old Testament moves beyond the grammatical-historical sense in light of the fuller revelation received through Christ.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-31"><a href="#ref-footnote-31">31</a> I put "personal" in quotation marks to defer to the terminology of the debate question while acknowledging the complexity of "personhood." I would say that Satan and demons are as personal as angels, except for the extent to which "personhood," being a <i>good </i>attribute, is compromised by evil.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-32"><a href="#ref-footnote-32">32</a> For an example of this, see his <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20161123125139/http://berea-portal.com/the-temptation-of-christ-a-ten-point-idiosyncratic-interpretation/" target="_blank">response</a> to my <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2014/11/who-tempted-jesus-in-wilderness-ten.html" target="_blank">ten-point argument</a> concerning the wilderness temptation accounts. After arguing that the genre of the accounts is "haggadic midrash, not narrative," he summarily dismisses most of my other arguments on that basis, without even interacting with what the text says.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-18687017670016398362021-01-30T10:34:00.013+02:002021-02-07T09:44:03.013+02:00The Church as Spiritual Israel (2): Abraham's Seed, Jerusalem Above, and the Israel of God in Galatians<div id="demo-1">
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Paul the Apostle was the first great Christian theologian. A Jew schooled in his ancestral traditions (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5) and "the apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13), his work played a crucial role in defining Christian identity in relation to its Jewish roots. Unsurprisingly, therefore, most of the key New Testament texts relevant to the question raised in the <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/01/the-church-as-spiritual-israel-1.html" target="_blank">first part of this series</a>—whether the Church can be thought of as "spiritual Israel"—occur in his letters. In this article, we begin our study of these texts with the Letter to the Galatians. This is generally regarded as the second earliest of Paul's letters and thus one of the earliest extant Christian texts.<sup id="ref-footnote-1"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-1">1</a></sup> The letter seeks to combat an idea that certain "disturbers" were spreading in the Galatian churches (Gal. 1:7), according to which Gentile Christians needed to live according to the Jewish law (including circumcision) to gain the full status in the elect community of Israel, the seed of Abraham. Although Paul clearly presupposes the ethnic distinction between the "Jews"/"circumcised" and the "Gentiles"/"uncircumcised" (Gal. 2:7-8, 12-15), and describes himself and Cephas (Simon Peter) as "by nature Jews" (<i>phusei Ioudaioi</i>), he asserts that in Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek"(Gal. 3:28). </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>The Seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:6-29)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Paul begins his main argument by asking the Galatians on what basis they had received the Spirit from God: on the basis of "works of the law," or faith (Gal. 3:2-5)? At this point Paul introduces Abraham into the argument, quoting Genesis 15:6 and inferring that "those who believe are the descendants of Abraham" (3:7 NRSV). He adduces Genesis 12:3 ("All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you") as direct evidence for the extension of the "blessing of Abraham" to the Gentiles (Gal. 3:8-9, 14). However, his claim is not merely that Gentile believers are blessed <i>alongside </i>Abraham's children or seed, but that they are blessed <i>as </i>Abraham's children or seed: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring [<i>sperma</i>, literally "seed"], heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). This is a very bold assertion, since "seed of Abraham" is, in the Jewish Scriptures, a term synonymous with Israel's status as God's chosen people.<sup id="ref-footnote-2"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-2">2</a></sup> We do not have space here to analyse the elaborate biblical argument by which Paul defends this claim, which is primarily Christological.<sup id="ref-footnote-3"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-3">3</a></sup> However, we have in this chapter a clear spiritualisation of the term "seed of Abraham" to include all Gentile believers in Christ.<sup id="ref-footnote-4"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-4">4</a></sup> Thus, while the term "Israel" does not occur, there does seem to be an implicit spiritualisation of the concept.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Running parallel to "seed of Abraham" is the notion that Christ-followers (Gentiles included) are "sons of God" (Gal. 3:26; 4:4-7).<sup id="ref-footnote-5"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-5">5</a></sup> This term is not used frequently of humans in the Jewish Scriptures, but what is fascinating is that two passages where the term "sons" is used conspicuously of God's people—Isaiah 54 and Hosea 2—are quoted by Paul precisely in connection with the spiritualisation of "Israel."<sup id="ref-footnote-6"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-6">6</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>The Two Jerusalems (Galatians 4:21-31)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A second passage within Galatians that demands our attention is Paul's allegorical commentary on Sarah and Hagar (cf. Genesis 16, 21) in 4:21-31. This passage is deeply interesting for its approach to biblical interpretation, given that such allegorical readings would become a mainstay of patristic exegesis. However, our concern here is with the the further spiritualisation of "Abraham's sons" that occurs here. It is possible that Paul's opponents had used this passage allegorically to paint non-Torah observing Gentile Christians as children of Hagar the slave woman rather than of Sarah (and thus as second-class citizens in the divine economy).<sup id="ref-footnote-7"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-7">7</a></sup> If so, Paul turns the argument on its head. In any case, he does assert that the story of Abraham's two sons is an allegory. One (Ishmael) was born of a slave woman, Hagar, "according to the flesh" (<i>kata sarka</i>), while the other (Isaac) was born of a free woman, Sarah, "through a promise." The flesh/promise contrast is not strictly antithetical, of course, since Isaac—though his birth required divine intervention—was a natural born son of Abraham and Sarah. Paul asserts that "These woman are two covenants" (4:24). Hagar corresponds to the covenant from Mount Sinai, and furthermore "corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children" (4:25). By contrast, "the other woman [i.e. Sarah] corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother." Paul continues,</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><blockquote><p>28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh [Greek: <i>kata sarka</i>] persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit [Greek: <i>kata pneuma</i>], so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. 1 For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 4:28-5:1, NRSV)</p></blockquote>Paul's allegorical interpretation does not merely entail the two women as two <i>covenants</i>, but also as two <i>Jerusalems</i>. There is a combined temporal/spatial contrast between them: "the <i>present</i> Jerusalem" (a temporal term) is contrasted with "the Jerusalem <i>above</i>" (a spatial term).<sup id="ref-footnote-8"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-8">8</a></sup> The point is that the first Jerusalem belongs <i>merely </i>to the "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4). The second Jerusalem is not called "the Jerusalem to come," because it already exists ("she <i>is </i>free and <i>is </i>our mother"); it is instead called "the Jerusalem above" to emphasise its transcendence. Commentators note that, in antiquity, to call a city one's mother was to describe oneself as a citizen of that city; thus Paul describes himself as a citizen of Jerusalem above (compare Phil. 3:20: "But our citizenship is in heaven").<sup id="ref-footnote-9"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-9" >9</a></sup> The allegory has thus progressed beyond "two covenants" to encompass two orders of things. The present Jerusalem, where the Temple still stood in Paul's lifetime, was the locus of the Sinaitic covenant, one of "slavery," while the new covenant of promise, of the Spirit, of freedom, had heaven itself as its locus.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The allegory is not limited to the two women, however, but extends to their respective children. Paul makes it clear that he and his predominantly Gentile addressees are the allegorical equivalent of Isaac: "children of promise," "[the son] according to the Spirit," "children of the freeborn woman," in contrast to another group that are the allegorical equivalent of Ishmael: "the son of the slave woman...according to the flesh," children of "the present Jerusalem." If the first group refers to those whose identity comes from the faith of Christ and not from Torah-observance, who are the second group? Their association with "the present Jerusalem" makes clear that they are Torah-observant Jews. But are they Paul's Jewish Christian opponents specifically, or (non-Christ-believing) Jews more generally? The decisive clue to their identity is given in v. 29, which indicates that the second group "now" persecutes the Church.<sup id="ref-footnote-10"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-10">10</a></sup> While it is conceivable that Paul might have thought of the disturbance his Galatian charges faced from Torahizing Jewish Christians as "persecution," he never says as much. By contrast, the letter's two prior references to persecution of the Church are to Paul's own persecuting activity <i>before he came to Christ </i>(1:13, 23). Moreover, near the end of the letter Paul insinuates that the false teachers' motive in compelling Gentile believers to be circumcised is to <i>avoid </i>persecution "for the cross of Christ" (6:12; cf. 5:11). Thus, the children according to the flesh who now persecute the children according to the Spirit are Jewish adherents of the Mosaic covenant in general.<sup id="ref-footnote-11"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-11">11</a></sup> This assertion runs parallel to that in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, which states that "the Jews" have persecuted the churches in Judaea.<sup id="ref-footnote-12"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-12">12</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div style="width: 667.2px;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">We have, then, in Galatians the idea that the Christian faithful—Gentiles included—are Abraham's seed "according to the Spirit" or "through the promise" in Christ, adopted children of God, and free citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a "spiritual Israel" concept in all but name. Not only that, but there is a foil standing in contrast to this group, Abraham's seed "according to the flesh," living in slavery and belonging only to "the present Jerusalem." Paul therefore not only moves to include Gentiles in his concept of the true Israel, but also demotes Jews who put their trust in Torah rather than Christ to a secondary status.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>The Israel of God (Galatians 6:16)</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">There remains one more passage in Galatians to discuss: the only occurrence of the word "Israel" in the letter.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">15 For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything! 16 As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16 NRSV)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What Paul means by "the Israel of God" here has been a subject of intense debate among biblical scholars, and there are three main views.<sup id="ref-footnote-13"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-13">13</a></sup> The most popular view is that "the Israel of God" refers to the Church.<sup id="ref-footnote-14"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-14">14</a></sup> In this case the passage provides ample basis for viewing the Church as "spiritual Israel," with the qualifier <i>of God </i>meaning something similar to "according to the Spirit." The second view understands "the Israel of God" to refer to Jewish Christians. In this case, <i>of God </i>identifies a subset of Israel who belong to God, because they have believed in his Son. The third view identifies "the Israel of God" as ethnic Israel—in other words, "the Israel of God" is simply Israel in the ordinary use of the term.<sup id="ref-footnote-15"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-15">15</a></sup> The qualifier <i>of God </i>then merely emphasises Israel's special elect status.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Arguments for the second and/or third meanings include the following: (i) the conjunction <i>kai </i>usually has a copulative meaning ("and") and only rarely has an explicative meaning ("even"). The statistically more likely reading "<i>and </i>upon the Israel of God" would thus suggest that "the Israel of God" is a different entity than "those who follow this rule" (i.e., those obedient to Paul's gospel). (ii) "Israel" consistently refers to the ethnic/national entity, throughout the Jewish Scriptures and the rest of the New Testament. (iii) A blessing upon Israel parallel to this one occurs in the Babylonian recension of the <i>Shemoneh Esreh </i>(the central prayer of the Jewish liturgy). (iv) The appeal to divine <i>mercy</i>, which is unparalleled in other Pauline benedictions, makes sense if "the Israel of God" is an entity currently under divine displeasure for disobedience. (v) This interpretation fits the wider Galatian context, which highlights that Christianity has a Jewish nucleus before ever broaching the issue of the Gentiles inclusion (Gal. 2:9-10).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">These arguments are, however, not convincing. (i) The conjunction <i>kai </i>may have a copulative sense most frequently, but it can also have an explicative sense, and it is context rather than a general appeal to statistical frequency that must be decisive. Beale points out a close parallel to this text in Psalm 84:9(85:8) LXX:<sup id="ref-footnote-16"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-16">16</a></sup></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I will hear what the Lord God will speak with me,<br />because he will speak peace to his people<br />and to his devout<br />and to those who turn to him their heart. (NETS)</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In this text, "his people," "his devout," and "those who turn to him their heart" are separated by the conjunction <i>kai </i>but are obviously three ways of describing the same group. Thus, "the Israel of God" may be an additional way that Paul wants to describe those who follow his rule.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Argument (ii) is also not persuasive, because we have seen striking cases earlier in the letter where Paul takes terminology normally reserved for ethnic Israel—"seed of Abraham" and citizenship of Jerusalem—and applies it to the Church, inclusive of uncircumcised Gentiles. It would be consistent with this earlier exceptional usage of terms for Paul to apply the term "Israel" to the Church inclusive of Gentiles here. (In subsequent installments in this series, we will look at other passages where Paul implies that the term "Israel" conveys more than ethnicity, such as 1 Corinthians 10:18 and Romans 9:6). Moreover, the exact term "Israel of God" never occurs in the Jewish Scriptures, which may signal that Paul means something different than what the term "Israel" ordinarily means. (iii) The Palestinian recension of the <i>Shemoneh Esreh</i>, which is regarded as earlier than the Babylonian, lacks the crucial word "mercy," which ruins the parallel with Galatians 6:16.<sup id="ref-footnote-17"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-17">17</a></sup> (iv) The call for mercy on the Church would be unique in Paul's letters,<sup id="ref-footnote-18"><a rel="footnote" href="#footnote-18">18</a></sup> but Paul's tone toward his addressees is also more severe than in any other letter. He believes the Galatians are "foolish[ly]" "deserting the one who called you" (1:6; 3:1), so a prayer for mercy is warranted. (v) The thrust of Paul's argument in Galatians has been that Gentiles who believe in Christ enjoy the same privileged status before God as Jewish believers. To make this point, he has included them among "the seed of Abraham," "the sons of God," and [citizens of] "the Jerusalem above." It would be very odd, therefore, at the conclusion of the letter for Paul to use the lofty term "Israel of God" to refer to a group that <i>excludes his Gentile addressees</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">One final point is that, elsewhere in Paul's letters, when the genitive <i>theou </i>("of God") is attached to a noun referring to a group of people, it is <i>always </i>an ecclesiological term that explicitly or implicitly includes Gentile believers ("church of God," 1 Cor. 1:12, etc.; "elect of God," Rom. 8:33; "sons/heirs/children of God," Gal. 3:26, Rom. 8:14-21; "temple of God," 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 2 Cor. 6:16; "field/building of God," 1 Cor. 3:9). Thus, the <i>theou </i>attached to "Israel" in Galatians 6:16 implies that this too is an ecclesiological term inclusive of Gentile believers. All things considered, the arguments for the "Israel of God = Church" reading are decisive.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Already in one of his earliest letters, Paul lays the foundation for an ecclesiology that identifies the Church with "spiritual Israel." If the Church can legitimately be called "spiritual Israel," however, where does that leave the Jews, particularly non-Christian Jews? Paul's contrast between the Abraham's children <i>kata sarka </i>and Abraham's children <i>kata pneuma </i>seems to paint ethnic Israel in an unfavourable light, as related to Abraham <i>merely </i>by carnal descent and "enslaved" by a devotion to law-observance rather than to Christ. It might appear, therefore, from Galatians that Paul is proposing a doctrine of supersessionism (as that term was defined in the previous article). However, we must bear in mind that in Galatians Paul is reacting against a "Judaizing" heresy and defending the status of uncircumcised Gentile believers in Christ. It would suit his rhetorical purposes to emphasise the privileged status of the Church (inclusive of Gentiles) vis-à-vis Israel. If we want to gain a fuller, more nuanced picture of how the Church and ethnic Israel relate to God and to each other, we will need to look at Paul's other writings that have a less polemical purpose. Above all, this will take us to Romans 9-11. However, before we go there, the next article will look at some other passages in Paul's letters that suggest a "spiritual Israel" concept—namely, 1 Corinthians 10:18, Philippians 3:3, and Romans 2:28-29.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="footnotes"><ul>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> "[T]he consensus view of Pauline chronology places 1 Thessalonians as Paul's first letter written in the late 40s and Galatians as the second written around 49 or 50" (Robert James Mason, "Galatians 3:28: An Aspect of Eschatological Asceticism in Paul," in David Lertis Matson & K.C. Richardson (eds.), <i>One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and "All That Jazz," in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy</i> [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014], 234). This would make these two letters the earliest extant Christian texts unless, as some scholars believe, the Letter of James was written earlier.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> "Remember the wonderful things which he did, his miracles and the judgments of his mouth, O offspring [<i>sperma</i>] of Abraam, his slaves, sons of Iakob, his chosen" (Ps. 104[105]:6 LXX); "Are you not the Lord who utterly destroyed the inhabitants of this land from before your people Israel and gave it forever to the seed [<i>sperma</i>] of Abraham, your beloved?" (2 Chr. 20:7 LXX); "But you, Israel, my servant, Iakob, whom I have chosen, the offspring [<i>sperma</i>] of Abraam, whom I have loved... do not fear, for I am with you; do not wander off, for I am your God who has strengthened you, and I have helped you, and I have made you secure with my righteous right hand." (Isa. 41:8-10 LXX); cf. Ex. 3:15-16. Translations from the LXX herein are, unless otherwise indicated, taken from the New English Translation of the Septuagint.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Paul asserts that the singular word "seed" referred to in the promises to Abraham (e.g., Gen. 12:7) is not a collective noun (as it appears to be) but is a literal singular noun referring to Christ personally. Those who become associated with "faith of Christ Jesus" in baptism (Gal. 3:22, 26-27) become heirs, sharers in the promise made to him (Gal. 3:29-4:7).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Of course, Jews in Paul's day also had a proselytisation process by which Gentiles could enter the covenant and become part of Abraham's seed, and a similar process (including circumcision and Torah observance) seems to be what Paul's opponents had in mind. Thus, it is not the extension of "seed of Abraham" to include non-physical descendants that makes Pauline Christianity distinctive. It is the Christocentric rather than Torah-centric focus of the procedure, its relative ease (no physical pain required for males), and its eventual popularity such that the Church became predominantly Gentile.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> I am translating the Greek term literally, while recognising that it should be interpreted as gender-inclusive in contemporary application.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> Isaiah 54:1 (which, admittedly, does not use the term "sons <i>of God</i>") is quoted by Paul in Galatians 4:27 within the Sarah-Hagar allegory to be discussed below. Hosea 2:1 (1:10 LXX) foretells that the sons of Israel would be called "sons of a living God." This text is quoted by Paul in Romans 9:25-26, to be discussed in a subsequent article. The same passage (albeit without the "sons of the living God" part) is quoted in 1 Peter 2:10. Both writers appear to apply Hosea's oracle at least partly to <i>Gentile believers</i>. Other places where God's people Israel are referred to as God's son(s) include Psalm 28(29):1 LXX and Hosea 11:1, the latter of which is cited Christologically in Matthew 2:15.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> So Frank J. Matera, <i>Galatians</i> (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 177.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> "What [Paul] has actually done, however, is to mingle the two forms, the temporal and the spatial, in such a way as to indicate that the Jerusalem that is to come has already arrived (note the twice-repeated 'is') in the form of a heavenly, spiritual Jerusalem" (Ronald Y. K. Fung, <i>The Epistle to the Galatians </i>[2nd edn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 210).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> "Claiming a city as a mother is a declaration of citizenship, as Paul expresses more explicitly in Philippians: 'Our citizenship is in heaven' (Phil 3:20). This is the land that the spiritual descendants of Abraham will inherit (cf. Gal 5:21) in line with God's promise that he would provide them with territory" (David A. deSilva, <i>The Letter to the Galatians</i> [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018], 400).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> The verse also implies that Ishmael persecuted Isaac. This is not explicitly stated in Genesis, but the idea arose in later Jewish tradition that is here assumed by Paul.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> "L'apôtre fait-il allusion à une persécution des chrétiens par les légalistes (Sieffert, Zahn, Burton, Lagrange) ou par les juifs (Schlier, Oepke, etc)? Il faut peut-être préférer cette seconde interprétation" (Pierre Bonard, <i>L'Épître de Saint Paul aux Galates</i> [2nd edn; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1972], 99); "Paul regards certain Jewish-Christian parties as particularly hostile to himself (Gal 2:3-5) and might even have begun to regard their activity as persecution. However, the other four explicit references to persecution in Galatians point more directly toward non-Christian Jewish opposition to the Christian movement. Paul twice refers to his own former activity as persecuting the church while still 'in bondage' himself (Gal 1:13, 23). He also refers to the persecution that he alleges the rival teachers to be avoiding by promoting circumcision, which Paul could have hoped to avoid were he to do likewise, but does not (Gal 5:11). Such persecution is more likely to be coming from the moderately empowered non-Christian Jewish community, which had a certain authority over its own and used this authority to restrain deviance (see Acts 9:1-2; 2 Cor 11:24; 1 Thess 2:13-16). This persecution targets most directly the Jewish Christians who appear to go beyond the pale of Torah or speak against the central pillars of the Mosaic covenant, but makes itself felt among gentile Christians as well" (deSilva, <i>Letter to the Galatians</i>, 403).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> "For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved" (NRSV). Incidentally, the anti-Jewish rhetoric of this passage is so strong that some scholars have proposed that it is a non-Pauline interpolation! See Markus Bockmuehl, "1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalem," <i>Tyndale Bulletin, 52</i>(1) (2001): 1-31. Frank D. Gilliard describes the comma used after "Jews" in most translations of v. 14 as anti-Semitic: note the difference between "the Jews, who killed" and "the Jews who killed." ("The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15," <i>New Testament Studies, 35</i>(4) [1989]: 481-502).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> For a description of these three interpretations, see S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," <i>The Master’s Seminary Journal, 20(1) </i>(2009): 44-47.</li>
<li id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> "in Gal 6.16, Israel, qualified importantly as ‘the Israel of God’, usually is identified as the church as a whole, or as some portion thereof" (Susan Grove Eastman, "Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9-11," <i>New Testament Studies</i> <i>56</i>(3) [2010]: 367-95, here 369). For arguments in favour of the ecclesiological interpretation, see G. K. Beale, "Peace and Mercy upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b," <i>Biblica</i> <i>80</i>(2) (1999): 204-223; Andreas J. Köstenberger, "The Identity of the ἸΣΡΑΗΛ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16," <i>Faith and Mission</i> <i>19</i>(1) (2001): 1-16; Matera, <i>Galatians</i>; Richard H. Bell, <i>The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel</i> (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Christopher W. Cowan, "Context is everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6.16," <i>Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 14</i>(3) (2010): 78-85; G. Walter Hansen, <i>Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts</i> (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> For arguments in support of the second and/or third views (which have some overlap), see Peter Richardson, <i>Israel in the Apostolic Church </i>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Johnson, "Paul and 'The Israel of God'"; Michael Bachmann, <i>Anti-Judaism in Galatians? Exegetical Studies on a Polemical Letter and on Paul’s Theology </i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); Eastman, "Israel and the Mercy of God"; Andy Cheung, "Who is the ‘Israel’ of Romans 11:26?" in <i>The Jews, Modern Israel and the New Supersessionism, </i>ed. Calvin L. Smith (rev. ed.; Broadstairs: King's Divinity Press, 2013), 119-138; Lionel J. Windsor, <i>Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul's Jewish Identity Informs his Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans</i> (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014).</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> Beale, "Peace and Mercy upon the Israel of God," 209-210.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> So Beale, "Peace and Mercy upon the Israel of God," 207-208.</li>
<li class="footnote" id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> The only other occurrences of the word <i>eleos </i>("mercy") in the letters undisputedly attributed to Paul are in Romans 9:23, 11:30-31, and 15:9. In 9:23, those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, are referred to as "the vessels of mercy." In 11:30-31, Paul relates how both Gentiles and Jews disobeyed in turn, "For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all." In 15:9, Paul describes Christ as a "minister of the circumcised" to the end "that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy."</li>
</ul></div>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-50418341645337719482021-01-08T21:01:00.005+02:002021-01-09T16:29:50.241+02:00The Church as Spiritual Israel (1): An Important but Sensitive Claim<div id="demo-1"><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In his <i>Dialogue with Trypho </i>(written c. 160 C.E.), the early Christian philosopher and apologist Justin Martyr tells his Jewish interlocutor, Trypho, "For we [Christians] are the true spiritual Israel, and the descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham" (<i>Dial. </i>11.5).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-1" id="ref-footnote-1">1</a> This is an audacious claim for an uncircumcised Gentile to make—especially in conversation with a physical descendent of Israel (Jacob) who is a devotee of the Jewish religion. It is also a claim that has had massive implications both for Christian interpretation of the Old Testament and for Christian-Jewish relations.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Spiritual Israel and Old Testament Interpretation</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A fundamental premise of the Church Fathers was that Scripture, being inspired by God, carries multiple senses. Origen, the prolific third-century theologian, for instance, declares that Scripture has a threefold sense. Citing Proverbs 22:20-21 LXX as a proof text,<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-2" id="ref-footnote-2">2</a> Origen writes:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">One must therefore portray the meaning of the sacred writings in a threefold way upon one's own soul, so that the simple man may be edified by what we may call the flesh of the scripture, this name being given to the obvious interpretation; while the man who has made some progress may be edified by its soul, as it were; and the man who is perfect... may be edified by the spiritual law, which has 'a shadow of good things to come'. For just as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the same way does the scripture, which has been prepared by God to be given for man's salvation. (<i>On First Principles </i>4.2.4.)<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-3" id="ref-footnote-3">3</a></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Origen acknowledges that the literal, fleshly meaning is present and can be helpful, but relegates it to beginner's level exegesis. Of the second, soulish meaning (elsewhere called the moral sense), Origen gives as an example Paul's interpretation of the law about muzzling oxen in Deuteronomy 25:4 (cf. 1 Cor. 9:9-11). Coming to the third, spiritual meaning (elsewhere called the typological sense), Origen elaborates thus:</div><div style="width: 100%;"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">But it is a spiritual explanation when one is able to show of what kind of 'heavenly things' the Jews 'after the flesh' served a copy and a shadow, and of what 'good things to come' the law has a 'shadow'. (<i>On First Principles </i>4.2.6)<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-4" id="ref-footnote-4">4</a></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Origen goes on to cite Paul's allegorical interpretation of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4 as proof that the scriptures have a spiritual, allegorical sense. But our main point here is that Origen, generally, would read references to Israel in the Old Testament as referring to ethnic Israel only in the literal, fleshly sense, <i>while referring to the Church in the more profound, spiritual sense</i>. Since there are countless references to Israel (and related terms) in the Old Testament, this approach—which rests on the claim, made earlier by Justin, that the Church is "spiritual Israel"—has huge implications for biblical interpretation.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It is important to note that post-biblical Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures, as seen in rabbinic literature, is also highly sophisticated and extracts moral and theological meaning that goes far beyond the literal sense. A key difference, though, is that Christians have traditionally read the Jewish Scriptures Christologically, and thus see typological references to Christ and his Church, while Jewish interpreters have not. This distinction, from a Christian point of view, is articulated by Justin to Trypho thus: "...they are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe and obey them, whereas you, though you read them, do not grasp their spirit" (<i>Dial. </i>29.2).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-5" id="ref-footnote-5">5</a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Spiritual Israel and Supersessionism</b></div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The notion that the Church is "spiritual Israel" while ethnic Jewry is "fleshly Israel" is a central plank of the doctrine of supersessionism, which holds that the Church has superseded or displaced ethnic Israel as the chosen people of God. Soulen describes three types of supersessionism: punitive, economic, and structural (which are not mutually exclusive).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-6" id="ref-footnote-6">6</a> <i>Punitive </i>supersessionism holds that "God abrogates God's covenant with Israel...on account of Israel's rejection of Christ and the gospel."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-7" id="ref-footnote-7">7</a> Supersessionism of the <i>economic </i>kind holds that Israel's role was a preparatory and transient one: "the ultimate obsolescence of carnal Israel is an essential feature of God's one overarching economy of redemption for the world."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-8" id="ref-footnote-8">8</a> Israel's role falls away because this was always God's plan, not because of their disobedience. Economic supersessionism is closely related to the spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament, since it maintains that "Israel corresponds to Christ in a merely prefigurative and carnal way, whereas the church corresponds to Jesus Christ in a definitive and spiritual way."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-9" id="ref-footnote-9">9</a> </div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The doctrine of supersessionism has—both theoretically and historically—profound implications for Christian-Jewish relations. Punitive supersessionism easily becomes a pretext for open hostility toward the Jewish people. If "carnal Israel" is viewed as a theological reality that stands cursed for rejecting Christ, every generation of Jews may be regarded as "Christ killers" and treated accordingly. Unfortunately, this narrative has played out many times with horrific consequences, particularly since the fourth century, when Christians first became more numerous and more politically powerful than Jews. Economic supersessionism may not provoke hostility toward the Jewish people, but it can entail a patronising view of post-biblical Jewish religion and culture, as though the Jews have foolishly failed to realise that their time is up.</div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The decades since the Nazi Holocaust have witnessed a sea change in Christian-Jewish relations and in Christian theology pertaining to supersessionism. This is evidenced by, <i>inter alia</i>, official documents from the Roman Catholic Church (see <i><a href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html" target="_blank">Nostra Aetate</a> </i>from the Second Vatican Council), dialogue between Jewish and Christian leaders, warm collaboration between Jewish and Christian biblical scholars, and the interfaith movement more generally. The establishment of the modern State of Israel has created a new theological question, with "Christian Zionists" for instance regarding this as divinely ordained and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Christian anti-Semitism has certainly not disappeared but has been beaten back significantly in the churches and the academy. It is probably fair to say that Christian-Jewish relations have never been better than they are now.</div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Evaluating the Spiritual Israel Claim</b></div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Recent improvements in Jewish-Christian relations are good news, but the biblical texts themselves have not changed in the last 75 years.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-10" id="ref-footnote-10">10</a> While it is good that post-Holocaust biblical scholars and theologians have become more sensitive to the disastrous events that can be enabled by their work, Robinson rightly observes that modern reinterpretation of early Christian texts pertaining to Jews "smacks too much of a sanitizing effort."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-11" id="ref-footnote-11">11</a> </div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It would not be methodologically sound to reject or reconfigure Justin Martyr's "spiritual Israel" claim, or any doctrine of supersessionism, simply because such ideas were subsequently used to justify hatred and persecution of Jews. This would be an instance of the fallacy of <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Consequences" target="_blank">appeal to consequences</a>. Nor, when examining the relevant New Testament texts, should our interpretation be affected by the current <i>zeitgeist </i>of interfaith friendship and tolerance, good though it is. Rather, the New Testament must be interpreted, and Justin's claim adjudicated, in its ancient historical context. Once we understand what the New Testament witness conveys on the subject, we can reach conclusions about whether it is valid to refer to the Church as "spiritual Israel," and what the consequences are for a doctrine of supersessionism. </div><br /><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the articles to follow, we will examine a number of New Testament texts that have often been read as signaling a "spiritual Israel" view of the Church (though the term "spiritual Israel" does not occur in the New Testament). Most of these passages are in the Pauline epistles. They include the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31, "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, "Israel according to the flesh" in 1 Corinthians 10:18, "We are the circumcision" in Philippians 3:3, the "hidden Jew" in Romans 2:28-29, "not all those of Israel are Israel" in Romans 9:6-8, the interpretation of Hosea in Romans 9:24-26 and 1 Peter 2:10, the olive tree metaphor of Romans 11:16-32, the chosen people in Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9, and the foreigner-to-citizen transformation in Ephesians 2:11-20.</div>
<br />
<ul>
<li id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Translation from Thomas P. Halton, <i>St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho</i>, ed. Michael Slusser, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 20.</li>
<li id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> "Now then, copy them for yourself three times over, for counsel and knowledge on the surface of your heart. Therefore I teach you a true word and good knowledge to heed in order that you may answer words of truth to them who question you" (New English Translation of the Septuagint).</li>
<li id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> Translation from G. W. Butterworth, <i>Origen: On First Principles </i>(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), 275-76.</li>
<li id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Trans. Butterworth, <i>Origen: On First Principles</i>, 279-80.</li>
<li id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Trans. Halton, <i>St. Justin Martyr</i>, 44.</li>
<li id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> <i>Structural </i>supersessionism—which for Soulen is the most fundamental kind—"unifies the Christian canon in a manner that renders the Hebrew Scriptures largely indecisive for shaping conclusions about how God's purposes engage creation in universal and enduring ways" (R. Kendall Soulen, <i>The God of Israel and Christian Theology</i> [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 31). Soulen notes how the Christian canonical narrative of Creation, Fall and Redemption foregrounds Genesis 1-3 and the New Testament with the result that "The Hebrew Scriptures recede into the background." It is worth noting, however, that for Christian interpreters like Origen, who applied a robust spiritualizing hermeneutic to the Old Testament and found typological references to Christ on almost every page, the Old Testament was <i>not </i>neglected. Structural supersessionism is not dependent specifically on the notion of the Church as spiritual Israel, and thus is less of a concern for the purposes of this article.</li>
<li id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Soulen, <i>The God of Israel</i>, 30.</li>
<li id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Soulen, <i>The God of Israel</i>, 30.</li>
<li id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> Soulen, <i>The God of Israel</i>, 29.</li>
<li id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> I suppose one should qualify that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls technically has changed the biblical text by providing scholars with a treasure trove of additional textual and contextual data.</li>
<li id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Thomas A. Robinson, <i>Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways </i>(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 240.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-52911640945936395182020-12-06T15:56:00.003+02:002020-12-06T16:10:54.231+02:00Dale Tuggy and the Stages of Trinitarian Commitment<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Prof. Dale Tuggy, a philosopher of religion and unitarian apologist, released a podcast episode a couple of months ago entitled, <i><a href="https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-302-the-stages-of-trinitarian-commitment/" target="_blank">The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment</a></i>, based on a talk he had given at a Restoration Fellowship theological conference (available on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEr7Em9wkV8" target="_blank">YouTube</a>).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-1" id="ref-footnote-1">1</a>
I am familiar with Tuggy's Trinities podcast, but not a regular listener; this episode came to my attention when he posted it in a Christadelphian Facebook group to which I belong.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the talk, Tuggy describes six stages through which one might progress from an ignorant Trinitarian to an enlightened unitarian.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-2" id="ref-footnote-2">2</a> While he draws extensively on his own personal experience, Tuggy does not regard his six stages as merely a personal journey. His talk is sociological in nature, and the six stages are implied to be a normative trajectory of Christian intellectual experience. Tuggy allows that not everyone follows the path exactly as he did. Some hunker down along the way and do not progress, some skip stages; occasionally someone <i>regresses</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">What then are the six stages? They are: </div><div style="width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">1. paper “trinitarian” </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">2. defender of “the Trinity” </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">3. interpreter of “the Trinity” </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">4. Berean trinitarian </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">5. “trinitarian” ex-trinitarian </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">6. unitarian Christian</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">To summarise briefly, a <i>paper trinitarian</i> is what most professing Christians in the world are. They are Trinitarians because they belong to a religious group with a Trinitarian confessional stance, but are both uninformed and bewildered about what the doctrine actually means. A <i>trinitarian defender</i> is one who has learned just enough about the Trinity to defend it, and does so aggressively and uncharitably, enjoying the status that comes with being a self-appointed apologist. A <i>trinitarian interpreter</i> is one who has delved more deeply into the philosophical underpinnings of the doctrine, and attached him/herself to one of the different models used to rationalise the doctrine's intrinsic paradox (social Trinity, psychological Trinity, etc.) One becomes a <i>Berean trinitarian</i> when, frustrated with the pitfalls of the philosophical models, one resolves to honestly investigate whether the Trinity is biblical. A <i>'trinitarian' ex-trinitarian </i>is one who is now convinced that the Trinity is false, but resists exiting his/her trinitarian denomination to embrace unitarian Christianity, due to the attractiveness of being accepted within the "Trinity club," which keeps hold of its members with the help of a "culture of fear." Finally, when the theological traveler musters up the courage to openly accept what s/he already knew to be true, s/he becomes a <i>unitarian Christian</i> and has arrived at the summit of the climb.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Evaluation</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Below are a few comments on the particular stages followed by an evaluation of the model as a whole. Firstly, just because a Trinitarian Christian is neither an apologist nor a philosopher does not mean s/he is a mere <i>paper trinitarian</i>. One who has been catechised in orthodox Christian doctrine and accepts the teaching in good faith is not a mere dupe for being unable to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity in philosophical language. The same is true of other doctrines. Would we consider a fellow Christian to be a 'paper theist' because s/he is unable to give a philosophically sound account of the classical arguments for God's existence? A 'paper eschatologist' because s/he cannot offer a compelling account of what eternity means in terms of philosophy of time? Moreover, the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessarily esoteric or irrelevant for Christians of the non-apologist, non-philosopher variety. Anyone can intuitively appreciate the significance of the notion that <i>loving communion</i> characterises God's own inner life, a loving communion that we have been created to share in and extend to others. The doctrine of the Trinity leads immediately to a purpose and mission for the believer's life.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Concerning the <i>trinitarian defender </i>stage, there surely are Trinitarian apologists more notable for their arrogance and aggression than the substance of their arguments. However, any apologist or polemicist is susceptible to arrogance, aggression, and substandard argumentation; this human weakness has nothing to do with Trinitarianism. I can attest that there are unitarian apologists out there whose arrogance matches their ignorance, for I used to be one! Similarly, an aversion to philosophically rigorous description of doctrines is not a Trinitarian disease. I grew up in a unitarian community where 'philosophy' was often used as a byword (e.g., with recourse to Colossians 2:8); some members considered philosophy <i>per se</i> to be bad. (On early Christian use of Greek philosophy, see <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2014/08/greek-philosophy-and-early-gentile.html" target="_blank">here</a>.) Bottom line: Trinitarians certainly have no monopoly on low-quality apologetics. The personal shortcomings that all too often compromise the work of amateur apologists is a result of their human weakness, not their Trinitarian ideology.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Concerning the <i>trinitarian interpreter </i>stage, all of the examples Tuggy mentions here (including himself) are of professional philosophers or philosophical theologians. This is hardly a normative phase of Christian intellectual development! There are relatively few Christians who obtain formal qualifications in philosophy, but of those who do, many remain Trinitarian. Is it charitable to assume that such Trinitarians have merely 'hunkered down' with their unsatisfactory ideas while the eventual unitarian progresses further?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Concerning the <i>Berean trinitarian </i>stage, Tuggy explicitly characterises it in terms of being a 'true Protestant,' living out the <i>sola Scriptura </i>ideal. In so doing, he completely ignores Catholic and Orthodox approaches to doctrine. His sociological model has no room for epistemologies other than his own Protestant one.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">As with the <i>trinitarian defender </i>stage, Tuggy's comments on the <i>'trinitarian' ex-trinitarian </i>stage characterise phenomena that are common in many areas of religious experience as specific to Trinitarianism. One in the midst of any crisis of religious belief is likely to experience psychological stress (e.g., cognitive dissonance) as one grapples with the disconnect between one's own inner convictions and those of one's peers. There is a temptation to suppress one's convictions in order to preserve the stability of one's social and religious life. This is as true for a person contemplating a unitarian-to-Trinitarian shift as for the reverse, as I can personally attest.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The biggest problem with Tuggy's six-stage model, however, is not that he has inadequately described particular stages, but that he has apparently neglected to consider that some people follow completely different trajectories in their Trinitarian commitment. Below, I describe the trajectory that I have followed—by way of illustration and <i>not </i>to suggest that my experience is normative or objectively better than others'.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>My Own Stages of Trinitarian Commitment</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I would characterise my own stages of Trinitarian commitment thus:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">1. Naïve unitarian</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">2. unitarian apologist</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">3. Doubt and apathy</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">4. Investigation and indecision</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">5. catholic Trinitarian</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I was raised as a Christadelphian, and it was a central feature of communal religious life not only to be a unitarian but to be an anti-Trinitarian. That the doctrine of the Trinity was not merely false but nonsensical was mentioned frequently and emphatically. The doctrine was regularly misrepresented in public talks as affirming polytheism, denying Jesus' humanity, or maintaining that Jesus prayed to himself. My assumption was that the idea of the Trinity simply did not deserve serious thought, and so the notion that it might be true never crossed my mind. I was a <i>naïve unitarian</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Although the Trinity was an obviously ridiculous idea, many Trinitarians evidently did not know this, and so it was a noble undertaking to dispel their ignorance and show them the truth. Thus, in my middle teens I became an online Christadelphian apologist, wrangling away the hours on Internet forums and starting my own apologetics website. My apologetics <i>modus operandi </i>consisted largely of proof-texting and lacked serious engagement with opposing arguments. I was a <i>unitarian apologist</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Gradually, having encountered some coherent Trinitarian arguments (both online and in books), I came to appreciate that the case for unitarianism wasn't open-and-shut. I felt my first real pangs of doubt about the position I had always assumed to be the obvious truth. This was part of a larger crisis of conviction about Christianity itself, and for awhile I lost interest in Christian doctrine, while still outwardly practicing the Christadelphian religion. I had fallen into <i>doubt and apathy</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In time, my faith in the basic truth of Christianity (e.g., the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus) returned, and with it a zeal for studying the Scriptures and thinking about Christian doctrine. I became firmly convinced on biblical grounds that Christ personally pre-existed and was in some sense divine, and it was clear that I could no longer uphold the dogmatic unitarianism of Christadelphians. I gradually withdrew from the Christadelphian community while exploring other, mainly Evangelical, religious communities. Yet I could not wholeheartedly embrace Trinitarian dogma either; I just did not see the doctrine laid out clearly in Scripture. I conceived of the Trinity as a plausible but ultimately man-made attempt to make sense of biblical revelation. I thought I could address my indecision through further study, so I undertook a formal degree programme in theology. This was a period of <i>indecision and investigation</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Today, I am a dogmatic Trinitarian (for a fuller account of my journey to orthodoxy, see <a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2017/06/journeys-from-christadelphia-to.html" target="_blank">here</a>). However, I did not reach this stage primarily through study of the biblical testimony about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Instead, I experienced a paradigm shift in <i>ecclesiology </i>and <i>epistemology</i>. My ecclesiological presuppositions had always been that it is the prerogative and duty of each individual to <i>figure out doctrinal truth for oneself</i> by studying the Bible; what the Church had decided in ecumenical councils carried no weight whatsoever as these councils were just deliberations of flawed humans. However, I have since come to take more seriously the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving the true faith in the Church, <i>despite </i>the flaws of its human members. That the doctrine of the Trinity was promulgated by the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and has stood as the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy ever since cannot merely be waved aside. If I am critical of the judgment of flawed humans, why in the world should I trust in my own judgment to arrive at doctrinal truth?</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Together with my ecclesiological paradigm shift, my epistemological assumptions also changed. I found <i>sola Scriptura </i>to be biblically and historically untenable, and concluded that God must have provided a living voice to authoritatively interpret his revelation. Eventually, I reached the conclusion that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had the most credible claim to be the successor of the apostles in this respect. Finally, John Henry Cardinal Newman's ideas on the development of Christian doctrine—that doctrine is not static and dead but dynamic and living, that the Church matures in its understanding of the deposit of faith—provided me with a framework for understanding how the doctrine of the Trinity might be central to the Christian faith despite appearing in Scripture only embryonically.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b>Concluding Thoughts</b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Dale Tuggy has described his stages of Trinitarian commitment, and I have now described mine, which have proceeded in opposite directions in relation to the doctrine itself. There is, however, some common ground: both trajectories began with a naïve position, followed by an overstated dogmatism, then a crisis of conviction, and ultimately settling on a new position. Perhaps this suggests a more general sociological model than that proposed by Tuggy. Of course, the stages of commitment that one follows are subjective and independent of the objective truth of one's original or final commitments. Hopefully, whatever position one ultimately takes on the doctrine of the Trinity, one takes it with some nuance and with great respect for those who, in good faith, arrive at a different position. All of us, indeed, "know partially" (1 Cor. 13:9), and depend on the mercy of God for our shortcomings, both moral and intellectual.</div><div style="width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;">
<ul>
<li id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> Tuggy recommends that podcast listeners check out the YouTube version to benefit from the slides. I listened to the audio while at the gym, and just checked out a couple of slides on YouTube to make sure I had correctly identified the six stages.</li>
<li id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> I use the small-u unitarian to distinguish the theological position from Unitarian denominations.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-57230995529730830862020-10-10T22:19:00.000+02:002020-10-10T22:19:35.963+02:00Dr. John Thomas, Slavery, and Abolitionism: A Case Study in Moral Theology<div>
<a href="#osec1" name="oref1"><b>Introduction</b></a><br/>
<a href="#osec2" name="oref2"><b>Dr. John Thomas and the Slavery Question</b></a><br/>
<a href="#osec3" name="oref3"><b>Theological Analysis</b></a><br/>
<a href="#osec3_1" name="oref3_1"><b>Ethical Biblicism</b></a><br/>
<a href="#osec3_2" name="oref3_2"><b>Ethical Adventism</b></a><br/>
<a href="#osec4" name="oref4"><b>Conclusion</b></a><br/><br/>
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref1" name="osec1">Introduction</a></b><br/><br/></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This article studies the views of Dr. John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians, on the American "slavery question." A Christadelphian reader may ask, "to what end?" American slavery was abolished in the 1860s and Thomas died in 1871.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-1" id="ref-footnote-1">1</a> What possible relevance could such a study have for Christadelphians in 2020? Is this ex-Christadelphian just taking a swipe at the movement's founder? No; what drives our interest in Dr. Thomas' views on the slavery question is that they offer a useful case study in Christadelphian moral teaching. Precisely because the moral issue in question is uncontroversial today, our study can focus on theological <i>method </i>without getting bogged down by disagreement over the issue itself.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref2" name="osec2">Dr. John Thomas and the Slavery Question</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="width: 100%;"><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">John Thomas was born and raised in England and emigrated to America in 1832 as a young medical doctor. He soon joined Alexander Campbell's religious movement and became an influential protégé of Campbell and the editor of a periodical, <i>The Apostolic Advocate</i>. Within a few years, Thomas and Campbell fell out over doctrinal disagreements. Some in the movement sympathised with Thomas, and he retained considerable influence in the mid-1840s through the publication of another periodical, <i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-2" id="ref-footnote-2">2</a> In 1847, Thomas abjured many of his earlier beliefs and had himself re-baptised, thereby birthing a new sect that would eventually take on the name Christadelphians.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-3" id="ref-footnote-3">3</a> During the three decades between his arrival in the United States and the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Thomas resided in both free states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York) and slave states (Virginia, Kentucky), with occasional tours of Great Britain and Canada (where slavery had been abolished for decades).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">At the same time Thomas was going through the theological odyssey that would result in the Christadelphian movement, slavery was becoming the "paramount national issue" in the USA.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-4" id="ref-footnote-4">4</a> Abolitionist newspapers and periodicals abounded in the North while proslavery sentiment filled the literature of the South. During the mid-1840s, mainline Protestant denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists split over the slavery issue.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-5" id="ref-footnote-5">5</a> "By the 1850s the slavery issue was front and center, igniting the passions of citizens and politicians throughout the country."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-6" id="ref-footnote-6">6</a> In late 1845, Thomas has already broken definitively with Campbell but is still forging his own theological identity. His <i>Herald </i>receives letters from two antislavery subscribers in the North who are concerned that Thomas has not expressed himself clearly on slavery, which the correspondents believe to be <i>the</i> abomination of the age.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-7" id="ref-footnote-7">7</a> His rival, Alexander Campbell, has just written a series of articles on slavery in his <i>Millennial Harbinger</i>.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-8" id="ref-footnote-8">8</a> It is clear that Thomas cannot ignore the question, but how to respond? His elite British education may have predisposed him to see slavery as backward, but he and his periodical are based in Virginia, a slaveholding state. He is certain to alienate some subscribers and perhaps lose friends no matter what he writes on this emotive issue.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">In the event, Thomas opts to emphatically downplay the importance of the subject. "[T]he vassalage, or freedom of a barbarous race," he writes, "is an affair of very subordinate consideration." The kind of slavery that demands his attention is <i>spiritual</i> slavery to sin, the common condition of mankind:</div><div style="width: 100%;"><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">In the Herald, we are neither <i>in </i>nor <i>out </i>on this topic, as 'involuntary slavery' is not the subject proposed to be discussed in our pages. We cannot agree with our New York friend, that '<i>involuntary </i>slavery is the greatest evil and sin in the world.' There is a greater evil and sin than this, and that is, <i>voluntary slavery to sin and Satan</i>. The whites and blacks are all enslaved by the god of this world; they are his willing slaves to work iniquity... We wish to emancipate men from the slavery of Sin; this is the abolition we go in for 'out and out'; and if a man be called being a slave, let him remain in his calling; but, if he can be free, let him use it rather if it be likely to conduce to his spiritual welfare; otherwise not. Political or civil liberty for a few short years is of very little consequence to the freedmen of truth, who are destined to share in the government of the world with Jesus Christ in the Future Age. 'Having food and raiment let us learn therewith to be content.' This is the doctrine we advocate—bondage to Jesus, vassalage to truth and righteousness, and emancipation from Sin, Satan, and the World.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-9" id="ref-footnote-9">9</a></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Replying to one correspondent's insistence on the slave's "human rights," Thomas insists that the master's rights must be considered, too. Thomas infers from Scripture that the slave owner's rights include "a right of property in his slave," "a right to the obedience of their slaves," and "a right to chastise them when they do wrong."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-10" id="ref-footnote-10">10</a> In his view, slavery is an "enormous evil, but not a sin." Slavery is "<i>regulated</i>, but not abolished, by the word of God," and "we have yet to learn where God has caused it to be written, 'thou shalt not hold man in bondage.'" </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Thomas' statements reflect a belief in white supremacy,<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-11" id="ref-footnote-11">11</a> widespread among whites at the time, but it is his moral-theological reasoning that is our focus here. Thomas claims that enlightened Virginians deplore slavery, but "how to get rid of it without prejudice to all concerned, is a problem which the legislation of the country has yet to solve." Is Thomas then interested in finding such a solution? Not at all:</div><div style="width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">We leave sectarianism to battle with slavery, we shoot at higher game: we aim to elevate civilized men to communion with God, Antislavery men may emancipate negroes from political thrall, while we would liberate <i>them </i>[i.e., civilized, antislavery men] from the bondage and degradation of sin.</div><div style="width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Thomas' position generated some backlash in the North. In a subsequent issue, he mentions having received a scathing letter from "Two brethren in Chicago" who had ordered "a discontinuance of the Herald." Thomas does not print their letter, but in responding to their denunciation he introduces a new argument. Yes, slavery is unquestionably bad, but the duty of Christians is not to meddle in such worldly affairs but "to separate themselves from the world" and "be patient unto the coming of the Lord," who is "at the door." "He will abolish slavery," and Thomas is "perfectly willing to leave the whole affair to his disposal."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-12" id="ref-footnote-12">12</a> Thomas admonishes his friends in Chicago that to devote their time and energy to abolishing slavery rather than converting sinners to God is to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-13" id="ref-footnote-13">13</a> Thomas reiterates this point after receiving another letter from his New York correspondent: "So we say of slavery it is an evil resulting from sin, but not therefore sinful in the sense of being forbidden. We say, that christians have no business to trouble themselves with it."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-14" id="ref-footnote-14">14</a> Christ will solve the world's problems at his return; our task is to prepare for this event by living a "holy life" of obedience and "patiently waiting for Christ," without being "distracted by the vain imaginings of political factions and partizans" (i.e., abolitionists).</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Over the next decade and a half, as the slavery debate intensified and civil war loomed, Thomas largely avoided the subject. For instance, during his extended visit to Britain in 1848-49, an evening was held in Edinburgh in his honour. Scotland was a noted hotbed of antislavery sentiment—Alexander Campbell (a Scot) was even briefly imprisoned there in 1847 amidst a bitter controversy with an abolitionist.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-15" id="ref-footnote-15">15</a> Thomas relates that those present on this evening were about to vote on a motion to support his evangelistic work financially when "a very zealous philanthropist arose in the midst, and objected to the vote being taken until I defined my position in regard to American slavery".<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-16" id="ref-footnote-16">16</a> Much to Thomas' relief, it would seem, the chairperson "pronounced the objection irrelevant", considering it unnecessary "to ascertain what were his opinions upon all the debatable questions of the day". In 1852, Thomas and his periodical (now called the <i>Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>) relocated from Virginia to New York, where expressing abolitionist sympathies would have carried little personal risk. However, this change of scenery appears to have had no effect on Thomas' expressed views on the subject.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">On those rare occasions when he did return to the slavery issue, Thomas maintained his earlier position while attacking the abolitionist cause vehemently. He declared unequivocally that an abolitionist "cannot be a Christian" and claimed that 1 Timothy 6:3-4 is a prophecy against abolitionists.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-17" id="ref-footnote-17">17</a> He also accused abolitionists of hypocrisy, though it is unclear what he meant.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-18" id="ref-footnote-18">18</a> Thomas thus effectively placed abolitionism on his list of "Doctrines to be Rejected"! Elsewhere, he reduced abolitionism to a trifle by including it in a list of "tedious and interminable conjurations" and "foolishisms" that distract one from "the weightier matters of the law."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-19" id="ref-footnote-19">19</a></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Thomas' views on slavery were moderate enough to attract criticism from both sides of the debate. At a speaking engagement in Mississippi, Thomas was accused by a hearer of preaching abolitionism. He retorted that the gospel he preached "Truly...is abolitionism in the largest sense; for the New Dominion will abolish abolitionists and all their spurious sentimentalism."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-20" id="ref-footnote-20">20</a> During a speaking tour to Toronto, Canada in 1860 (with the Civil War now just months away), an opponent named J. Williams sought to warn away Thomas' audiences by chalking up the sidewalk with accusations that Thomas was a slave-driver (which was untrue, though Thomas had in the past used slave labour on his Virginia farm).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-21" id="ref-footnote-21">21</a> Later on the same visit, a black man approached Thomas on the street, and after "apologetically inquir[ing]" if he might have a word with Dr. Thomas, asked: "Do you, Dr. Thomas, baptize slave-owners, and fellowship them?" When Thomas responded, "Yes, we do both," the man exclaimed, "Oh!" and hurried away. In view of the "agitation" over slavery that he experienced in Toronto, Thomas felt compelled to restate his earlier arguments that slave-owning is permissible and abolitionism a petty diversion from serious spiritual matters.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-22" id="ref-footnote-22">22</a></div><div style="width: 100%;"><div style="text-align: justify; width: 667px;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref3" name="osec3">Theological Analysis</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The foregoing does not paint Dr. John Thomas in a very favourable light, but again, the aim of this article is not to pass judgment on him. The fact is that very few religious groups in nineteenth-century America took a unified and resolute antislavery stance (the Quakers being a notable exception). Our purpose here is to understand the theology behind Thomas' position, and how it anticipated subsequent Christadelphian moral teaching.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">To summarise Thomas' position, slavery is an evil, a consequence of humanity's fallen state. However, the apostolic writings permit the practice, and it is therefore not sinful to own slaves. Human slavery is a temporary situation in this present life. It is thus a trivial matter for the believer, whose focus should instead be on liberating self and others from <i>spiritual</i> enslavement to sin, by believing in the doctrines taught in Scripture and living a holy life. Abolitionism is foolish, as it turns the believer's attention from eternal things to worldly, political affairs. The believer should avoid any involvement in the slavery debate, which Christ will resolve at his imminent return. I see two fundamental principles in play here, which I would label <i>ethical biblicism </i>and <i>ethical adventism</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref3_1" name="osec3_1">Ethical Biblicism</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">By ethical biblicism, I mean a particular approach to morality that seeks to answer any moral question by asking, "What does the Bible say about it?" (I have written about this in a previous article, <i><a href="https://blog.dianoigo.com/2019/05/moral-theology-vs-what-bible-says.html" target="_blank">Moral Theology vs. "What the Bible Says"</a>.</i>) Of course, as a Catholic Christian myself, I do hold the Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative. However, the process of answering moral questions is more complex than simply asking, "What does the Bible say?" It requires sound hermeneutics—principles for interpreting and applying divine revelation—and the use of philosophy to arrive at abstract principles that can then be addressed to concrete moral issues.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">A pure biblicism can leave us unable to reach firm convictions on moral issues that the Bible doesn't address, such as climate change. It can also cause us to fail to distinguish between contingent and absolute moral realities. For example, Mark 10:1-12 records a dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus on the permissibility of divorce. The Pharisees cite Scripture to justify their practices, but Jesus identifies this concrete scriptural testimony as a <i>contingent </i>moral precept that is overruled by a higher, more abstract moral principle. What about the slavery question? In 21st-century Western society, with institutional slavery long gone and basically no one still defending it, the "slavery question" seems to be no question at all. However, on biblicist premises, the proslavery position—or Thomas' leave-it-be stance—is unassailable! The institution of slavery is clearly legislated for in the Torah (e.g., Lev. 25:44-55).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-23" id="ref-footnote-23">23</a> In the first century A.D., the <i>Roman </i>institution of slavery was far more oppressive than what was permitted under the Torah. (A master could have his slave crucified, for instance.) Nevertheless, as John Thomas correctly observed, the New Testament writers do not speak out against slavery. Instead, they command slaves to be obedient to their masters (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18),<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-24" id="ref-footnote-24">24</a> sometimes adding that masters must treat their slaves fairly (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Paul instructs slaves to accept their lot in this life (1 Cor. 7:21-24), and sends the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon, with a letter that acknowledges the latter's prerogatives.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">How then can an antislavery position be defended? As with Jesus' teaching on divorce, one must regard concrete scriptural deference to the institution of slavery as contingent and overruled by more absolute and fundamental principles concerning the inviolable dignity of human life and the equality of humans before God. Unlike the divorce issue, one must do so without any explicit biblical warrant.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-25" id="ref-footnote-25">25</a> In short, one must leave biblicism behind. A moral argument against slavery must move beyond questions such as, "Is slavery biblical?" or, "What does the Bible say about slavery?" The Bible does indeed contain the "raw materials" for an antislavery moral theology, but it took many centuries of reflection and maturation for the Church to definitively develop one.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">John Thomas' biblicist approach to morality is the main reason why he failed to recognise American slavery as sinful,<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-26" id="ref-footnote-26">26</a> and biblicism is part of the legacy he bequeathed to the Christadelphians. Now, it would be unfair to describe Christadelphian moral teaching as purely biblicist. Christadelphians have taken a moral stand on issues such as voting in elections that are not directly discussed in Scripture. However, there is no question that Christadelphian moral teaching has been strongly influenced by biblicism, and is guided more by "Is behaviour <i>x </i>biblical?"—applied atomistically to various issues—than by a thoroughgoing moral theology. Indeed, the most well-known expression of Christadelphian moral teaching, the <i><a href="http://christadelphia.org/command.php" target="_blank">Commandments of Christ</a></i> portion of the Statement of Faith, is simply a listing of paraphrased biblical verses with no obvious structure. </div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Biblicism leaves one ill-equipped to respond to new moral questions that are not directly addressed in the Bible, or that are addressed only in a contingent way. As such, while claiming fidelity to the biblical text, biblicists actually undermine divine revelation by limiting its authority to what it says, as opposed to what it ultimately implies.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref3_2" name="osec3_2">Ethical Adventism</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">While Thomas did not regard slaveholding as sinful, he did recognise slavery as a social ill. Why then was he unwilling to advocate even a moderate form of abolitionism that would see slavery gradually eliminated? The answer lies in the second fundamental principle named above: <i>ethical adventism</i>. The premises here are a strong emphasis on the imminent Second Coming of Christ and a consequent near-total preoccupation with eternal and spiritual, as opposed to temporal and corporeal, concerns. John Thomas believed that the slavery issue was relatively unimportant because the slave's predicament was only a temporary one in the present life <i>and </i>because Jesus Christ would return very soon and resolve the matter definitively. Thus, slaves should accept their lot and free men should not interfere with slavery.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Ethical adventism has played a significant role in Christadelphian moral teaching ever since. Harry Tennant, for instance, in his article <i><a href="https://www.bibleqld.com.au/christ-and-protest/" target="_blank">Christ and Protest</a></i>, argues that </div><div style="width: 100%;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">The disciple's view is much wider than the panorama of his own time or the circumstances of his own life. He does not regard himself as having the right to seek political change or to agitate for social 'justice'... He knows and believes that there is no solution to the world's problems other than the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.</div><div style="width: 100%;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Once again, as a Catholic, I believe in and expectantly hope for the Second Coming of Christ. However, no one knows when it will happen, so its assumed imminence is no excuse for doing nothing about the problems of this world. Indeed, in Jesus' parables, the Master's sudden return is a reason to be active, not inactive. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that John Thomas was wrong in expecting Christ's Second Advent to resolve the slavery question in the mid-19th century. Fortunately, others did act, and slavery was ultimately ended by political and legal means (though, tragically, only after much bloodshed). Yet, well over a century later, Tennant still supported his claims that Jesus' disciples should not agitate for social justice by observing that the New Testament writers did not instruct their free readers "to urge the abolition of slavery."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">John Thomas saw a stark antithesis between living a "holy life" and becoming active in the social justice issues of the day. He quoted Matthew 23:23-24 against abolitionists, calling them hypocrites who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel and neglect the weightier matters of the law. The irony is that in this passage, Jesus describes the weightier matters of the law as "justice and mercy and faith." This may allude to Micah 6:8, which states that what is required of a man is to do justice and love goodness and walk humbly with God. To live a holy life means to <i>do justice:</i> to seek to relieve suffering and end injustice. Hypocrisy occurs precisely when we are scrupulous in honouring God while neglecting our obligations to our neighbours here on earth. To do justice could be as small as giving a thirsty person a cup of water, or as large as helping to end slavery. To say this is not to reduce the faith to a "social gospel" or lose sight of eternal things. In Catholic parlance we speak of <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm" target="_blank">the <i>spiritual </i>and <i>corporal </i>works of mercy</a>. Spiritual works of mercy attend to the spiritual needs of others while corporal works attend to their physical, bodily needs. Both are important; we cannot value a person's liberation from spiritual slavery to sin but devalue a person's liberation from physical slavery as "a very subordinate consideration."</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">It is not that we are setting our hopes on political solutions to the world's problems. We are to shine our light in the world, to provide the world with glimpses of what eternity holds. And who knows? We may in the process help to produce a more just society, as the 19th century abolitionists did.</div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oref4" name="osec4">Conclusion</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; width: 100%;">Having considered how Dr. John Thomas responded to the greatest moral controversy of his time, my question for Christadelphians is this: do you agree with Thomas' stance? Was he right to oppose abolitionism? If not, why not? And how would the answer inform a moral response to major social justice issues of our own time, such as refugee crises, climate change, or abortion? Shall we say, like John Thomas, that believers "have no business to trouble themselves with" such issues? Or shall we make our neighbours' problems our own, and <i>do justice</i>?</div><br/>
<ul>
<li id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> This is not to say that slavery is a dead issue; slavery and human trafficking are rampant in many parts of the world today.</li>
<li id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> A note in the first number of the <i>Herald </i>states that Thomas had mailed two thousand copies of the last two numbers of his preceding periodical, <i>The Investigator</i>. Depending whether this means two thousand of each or one thousand of each, this suggests a circulation of one or two thousand. Thomas notes that "All subscribers to the Investigator, unless we are notified to the contrary, will be considered as such to the Herald."</li>
<li id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> The name was adopted during the American Civil War as part of the group's representations to the authorities concerning its conscientious objection stance.</li>
<li id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> Frank Luther Mott, <i>A History of American Magazines: 1741-1850</i> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 456.</li>
<li id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> Jeff Wallenfeldt, ed., <i>The American Civil War and Reconstruction: 1850 to 1890</i> (New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2012), 8; Jonathan Daniel Wells, <i>A House Divided: The Civil War and Nineteenth-Century America</i>, 2nd edn (New York: Routledge, 2017), 46.</li>
<li id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> L. Sandy Maisel and Mark D. Brewer, <i>Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process</i>, 6th ed. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012), 31.</li>
<li id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> One correspondent, writing from New York, indicated that he did not subscribe to any faith but had strong antislavery views. The other, writing from Illinois, was considered by Thomas a brother in Christ. Thomas indicates that the Illinois correspondent was a lawyer who defended escaped slaves who were recaptured by slave hunters in that state.</li>
<li id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Given Thomas' long-standing ties to Campbell's movement, his periodical must have had many readers in common with the <i>Millennial Harbinger</i>. Despite the acrimony between the two, their views on slavery were quite similar. Both took the position that slavery is socially detrimental but that slave-owning is not condemned by the Bible and thus not sinful. In his critical biography of Campbell, Douglas A. Foster writes that Campbell sought to take a "moderate" position on slavery in order to preserve unity within his movement (<i>A Life of Alexander Campbell </i>[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020], 274-88). The unity motive was probably less of a factor for Thomas, who did not yet shepherd a religious movement and placed a much higher premium on truth (as he understood it) than unity. Nevertheless, any editor of a magazine with subscribers in the North and South would have appreciated the need to tread carefully to avoid alienating subscribers.</li>
<li id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> <i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 2 (1845/46): 121-22.</li>
<li id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Thomas discusses the Onesimus affair from Paul's Letter to Philemon at some length, and also cites Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Tim. 6:1, and Tit. 2:9</li>
<li id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> For example, Thomas states that masters ought to give their servants, and disciples ought to give their "colored brethren in Christ," "what is just and equal." However, he hastens to add that "it is no part of this justice or equality, to emancipate them, to amalgamate with them, to set them in the parlor or drawing room, and place themselves in the kitchen, &c., &c." In other words, blacks belong in the kitchen and whites in the parlor or drawing room; to do otherwise is to violate the scriptural principle "that all things should be done decently and in order" (<i>op. cit., </i>122-23). Further on, Thomas states, "In all parts of the world, men have as much liberty as they are fit for, and therefore as much as they deserve. This remark applies to man without distinction of race or color. Observation convinces us, that it is true in relation to the negroes especially".</li>
<li id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> <i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 2 (1845/46): 156.</li>
<li id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> The accusation of straining at a gnat only to swallow a camel (an allusion to Jesus' denuncation of the Pharisees in Matt. 23:24) is one that Thomas would level at abolitionists repeatedly. See <i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 10 (1860): 134, 204.</li>
<li id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> <i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 2 (1845/46): 186.</li>
<li id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> The abolitionist opponent, James Robertson, accused Campbell of libel after Campbell refused to debate him on the slavery question, alleging that Robertson had been expelled from a Baptist church for abusing his mother. Campbell was jailed to prevent his leaving the country before the matter was resolved. Foster describes this incident in <i>A Life of Alexander Campbell</i>, 278-82. John Thomas was aware of the incident, for he took to the <i>Herald </i>to mock Campbell for portraying himself as having been persecuted for righteousness' sake. "The Rev. James Robinson's [<i>sic</i>] proceedings are entirely indefensible; but a week in Glasgow Jail is no undeserved retribution <i>in part </i>for Mr. A. Campbell's iniquitous onslaughts upon reputation and character on this Western verge 'of the dark blue sea'" (<i>Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 4 [1848]: 249; the issue is printed as vol. 5 but this seems to have been a typographical error.)</li>
<li id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> <i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 2 (1852). I am following an electronic version of this volume that is not paginated; the passage occurs on page 999 of the PDF.</li>
<li id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> "And therefore he who violates Law, by depriving or striving to deprive his fellow-citizen of his slaves, or of any property to which the Law recognizes his right cannot be a christian. He incurs not only the penalty of the Law, but also the ban of the gospel: for in direct connection with the duties of slaves, the apostle declares—'If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings etc., 1 Tim. iv. 3 [<i>sic</i>]. Thus prophetically has the 'Holy Spirit' depicted modern Abolitionists and their fruits." (<i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 3 [1846]: 13).</li>
<li id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> The term is used repeatedly in Thomas' discussion of abolitionism in the 1860 volume of the <i>Herald</i> (pp. 134, 200, 204). In one instance, he writes, "What shall be said of the Christian that is straining with indignation to the bursting of his carcase at the oppression of slaves two thousand or more miles remote, while he is himself oppressing the weak and defenceless at his door! If this be not straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, we know not what is" (p. 134). It is not clear in what sense Thomas believes northern abolitionists to be guilty of "oppressing the weak and defenceless at his door." If Thomas means that blacks and other marginalised groups were also treated unjustly in the north, he had a valid point, but in that case he ought to have advocated for <i>consistent</i> social justice, rather than abandoning the cause altogether.</li>
<li id="footnote-19"><a href="#ref-footnote-19">19</a> Concerning the strategies used by the Devil (the Old Man of the Flesh), Thomas writes, "He knew that man was naturally prone to excess in all things; especially in the exercise of his moral sentiments; and that, in obedience to this propensity, he would strain out a gnat, and swallow camels by the herd. Having to work therefore upon a creature thus perverse, he set him to straining out of his cup a multitude of gnats called 'conscientious scruples.' He occupied his time, strength, and energies upon this tedious and interminable conjuration, so that he had no leisure for the weightier matters of the law. He disturbed his 'conscientiousness' about circumcision; how the dead are raised up; what kind of a body they come with; are they raised at all; the teachings of science and philosophy upon these points; this meat should not be eaten; that drink should be tetotally abstained from; the day of passover, and of the new moon, and sabbath days being kept holy; the worshipping of angels; voluntary humility; leavened bread; decoction of raisins; tobacco; abolitionism; conversion of the antipodes; and so forth, and so forth, without end." (<i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 10 [1860]: 134.) Again, he praises the brethren of Evansville, Indiana, for being "uncompounded with porkism, vegetarianism, antitobaccoism, unleavened-breadism, decoction-of-raisinism, phrenosciolism, abolitionism, tetotalism, and a multitude of other foolishisms poured out from the teeming brains of the fanatical and hypocritical infidels of northerndom." (<i>op. cit.</i>, 200.)</li>
<li id="footnote-20"><a href="#ref-footnote-20">20</a> <i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 7 (1857): 247.</li>
<li id="footnote-21"><a href="#ref-footnote-21">21</a> On the accusation, Thomas comments, "Of course this was a wanton and gratuitous falsehood... We neither own, hold, nor drive slaves, black, white, or grey... At the same time, we are not an abolitionist, whose political fanaticism and gnat-straining hypocrisy, which are all based upon the infidel speculations of the fleshly mind, we utterly despise" (<i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 10 [1860]: 203-204). Decades earlier, in an 1840 letter to a friend in England, James Wallis, Thomas wrote, "I derived pecuniary supplies principally out of the surplus remaining after the expenses of printing were defrayed; out of the trifle I paid the slave-owner for the labor of his slaves, whom I hired to work my farm, and purchased sugar, coffee, clothes, etc." (quoted in John W. Lea, <i>The Life and Writings of Dr. Thomas </i>[Philadelphia: The Faith Publishing Co., 1915], 111).</li>
<li id="footnote-22"><a href="#ref-footnote-22">22</a> <i>The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come</i>, vol. 10 (1860): 203-205.</li>
<li id="footnote-23"><a href="#ref-footnote-23">23</a> The practice of enslaving fellow Israelites was far more restricted than that of enslaving foreigners.</li>
<li id="footnote-24"><a href="#ref-footnote-24">24</a> 1 Peter 2:18 emphasises that the slave must be obedient even to an unjust master.</li>
<li id="footnote-25"><a href="#ref-footnote-25">25</a> The notion of the dignity of human life does not follow from any one text (though Gen. 1:26-27 is obviously of great importance), and is a highly abstract notion whose moral implications are not immediately obvious in Scripture. The texts that are most relevant to the dignified status of slaves specifically are 1 Cor. 7:22, Gal. 3:28, and Col. 3:11. Yet, in none of these texts does Paul make the inference that slaves should be emancipated, and in 1 Cor. 7:21-24 he explicitly resists making the move from equality before God to emancipation, though he allows that for a slave to acquire freedom could be a positive outcome. Other texts speak of freedom over against slavery as the ideal, but in a spiritual sense without overt implications for the social institution of slavery (see, e.g., John 15:15, Gal. 4:1-9, 5:1).</li>
<li id="footnote-26"><a href="#ref-footnote-26">26</a> Thomas' belief in the inferiority of the black race was also a factor, and his understanding of the Bible seems to have played a role here as well. It was widely believed in the 19th century that subjugation of black Africans by Europeans was a fulfilment of the curse passed on Canaan in Genesis 9:25-27, and thus biblically justified. I have not found a place in Thomas' writings where he makes this claim explicitly, but his description of black Africans as "the children of Ham" (<i>The Herald of the Future Age</i>, vol. 2 (1845/46): 124) may allude to it.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com1Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7097582791935798204.post-81634711529964417392020-09-27T15:31:00.001+02:002020-09-27T15:31:19.115+02:00Christadelphians, Politics, and the Common Good<div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec1" name="oname1">Introduction</a></b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#osec2" name="oname2">Distinctives of Christadelphian Moral Teaching</a></b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><div><b><a href="#osec3" name="oname3">Christadelphian Teaching on the Believer and the State</a></b></div><div><div><b><a href="#osec4" name="oname4">A Counterargument: Love of Neighbour and the Common Good</a></b></div><div><b><a href="#osec5" name="oname5">Objections Considered</a></b></div></div><div><div><b> <a href="#osec5_1" name="oname5_1">"What if my vote is contrary to God's will?"</a></b></div></div><div><b> <a href="#osec5_2" name="oname5_2">"Put no trust in princes"</a></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oname1" name="osec1">Introduction</a></b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">This article offers critical analysis of Christadelphian moral teaching as it pertains to social justice. From the outset I want to make clear that I am not criticising the <i>moral character </i>of Christadelphians. My own experience suggests that most Christadelphians are upstanding, kind-hearted people. There are many Christadelphians active in humanitarian work around the world,<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-1" id="ref-footnote-1">1</a> and other evidences of integrity and virtue in the Christadelphian community.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-2" id="ref-footnote-2">2</a> Thus, this article does not stake a claim to any moral high ground vis-à-vis Christadelphians. Rather, its focus is on certain points of <i>moral theology</i>.</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">I say "certain points" because I am not claiming that Christadelphian moral teaching is devoid of truth or value; far from it. If one compares Christadelphian moral teaching with that of wider Christianity, or of the Catholic Church (to which I am now committed), the commonality far outweighs the differences. The existence of objective moral values and the possibility of discerning right from wrong, both instinctively (through the divine gift of conscience) and via divine revelation, are assumed on all sides. Moreover, all would agree, following on the teachings of the Torah as expounded by Jesus, that the foundation of Christian morality is love—love of God and love of one's neighbour as oneself (Mark 12:29-31; Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:14; Jas 2:8). All would agree that the Ten Commandments normatively capture the most fundamental obligations of love of God and neighbour.</div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><b><a href="#oname2" name="osec2">Distinctives of Christadelphian Moral Teaching</a></b></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; width: 100%;">If one were to ask, "What distinguishes Christadelphian moral teaching from wider Christian moral teaching?", the most obvious answer would be to list certain activities that most other Christians are comfortable participating in but that Christadelphians eschew, such as:</div><div style="direction: ltr; width: 100%;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Political activities (including voting and running for political office)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Serving in law enforcement</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Serving in the military</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Jury duty</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Bringing a lawsuit (and practicing law, especially criminal law)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Taking an oath of allegiance</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Industrial action as part of a trade union<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-3" id="ref-footnote-3">3</a></li><li style="text-align: justify;">Participation in public demonstrations<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-4" id="ref-footnote-4">4</a></li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Most of these activities are explicitly prohibited in the Statement of Faith used by the majority of Christadelphian ecclesias.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-5" id="ref-footnote-5">5</a> What the above activities have in common is that most of them involve the individual's obligations toward, and influence on, the State and its laws and policies. Thus, to understand why Christadelphians eschew these activities, we must understand Christadelphian teaching about the believer and the State.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#oname3" name="osec3">Christadelphian Teaching on the Believer and the State</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A fundamental premise of Christadelphian teaching on this subject is that believers are "aliens and sojourners" (1 Pet. 2:11), "strangers and aliens on earth" (Heb. 11:13). "Their minds are occupied with earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:19-20). Our gaze is fixed on the world to come, not on this world that is "passing away" (1 Cor. 7:31).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-6" id="ref-footnote-6">6</a> As a Catholic, I affirm these ideas as heartily as I did as a Christadelphian.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Once the "stranger-and-pilgrim" concept is accepted, the logical next question is, "How should believers conduct themselves in relation to the present State and its laws?" Christadelphians point to clear biblical injunctions that believers are obliged to respect the State's authority, obey its laws, and pay taxes to it (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). As our Lord memorably put it, we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Mark 12:17). However, our submission to the State and obedience to its laws are not absolute. Christ's disciples are, as Christadelphian writer Jim Cowie states, to meet the obligations imposed by earthly citizenship "except where these contravene the principles and demands of their heavenly citizenship."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-7" id="ref-footnote-7">7</a> In the words of the apostles, when the laws and orders of human authorities conflict with the commandments of God, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). So far, Christadelphian and Catholic are in full agreement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The point of divergence lies in whether the aforementioned activities (voting and political action, police service, military service, jury duty, litigation, etc.) are consistent with the believer's alien status in this world. Do such activities fall under "rendering to Caesar," or do they violate our allegiance to God? Christadelphians take the latter view. Believers must not try to bring about political or social change (e.g., by voting or participating in demonstrations).</div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The disciple's view is much wider than the panorama of his own time or the circumstances of his own life. He does not regard himself as having the right to seek political change or to agitate for social 'justice.' Such right has not been given to him by his Master.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-8" id="ref-footnote-8">8</a></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">As an alien in this world, the disciple "lives in the country, but has no part in its affairs."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-9" id="ref-footnote-9">9</a> Our alien status "compells [<i>sic</i>] us to stand apart from the society in which we live, and avoid involvement in its practises [<i>sic</i>] and organisations."<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-10" id="ref-footnote-10">10</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Contrasting what Christadelphians regard as acceptable vs. unacceptable ways of rendering to Caesar, Cowie states:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">we are required to pay taxes to the state... but cannot give an oath of allegiance to serve it. We are required to obey the laws of the state... but cannot play a part in enforcing them. We are commanded to honour the king or rulers of the state... but cannot fight to preserve their rule. We are to respect and obey the powers that be... but cannot become involved in voting them in or out of office.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-11" id="ref-footnote-11">11</a></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#oname4" name="osec4">A Counterargument: Love of Neighbour and the Common Good</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In what follows, I offer a counterargument to the above idea that believers' status as aliens and heavenly allegiance precludes them from seeking to enact change by political or legal means. I will not focus on the more specific (and thornier) issue of military service here,<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-12" id="ref-footnote-12">12</a> but broadly on political and legal activities.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-13" id="ref-footnote-13">13</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have already mentioned our Lord's fundamental principle guiding the disciple's relations with the State: "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God" (Mark 12:17). Strictly speaking, this is a false dichotomy: everything belongs to God, including Caesar! However, the unstated qualification is that God has granted Caesar a certain domain of legitimate authority (cf. John 19:11). Why has God done so? It is not merely that God is permitting evildoers to have the upper hand until the end of this age. Paul makes it clear in Romans 13:1-4 that the State's authority has been established by God and is a servant of God with a divinely appointed ministry, namely to preserve and promote the common good.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With this in mind, let us return to an even more fundamental moral truth, also stated by Paul in the same context: that the commandment that sums up all others is "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Rom. 13:8-10). This "second great commandment" (Matt. 22:39) raises two further questions: what is love, and who is my neighbour? Paul describes love's characteristics in 1 Corinthians 13 without giving a definition. The <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>, following St. Thomas Aquinas, states that "To love is to will the good of another" (Article 1766). Some such definition is implied by the commandment to love neighbour <i>as self</i>. Each person innately wills and seeks his/her own good; we are asked to extend this goodwill to others (cf. Matt. 7:12).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was in response to the question, "Who is my neighbour?" that Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The story challenged the questioner's assumptions by depicting a hated Samaritan as the benefactor of the imperiled Jew. Jesus closed by turning the question on its head: not who is <i>my </i>neighbour but who <i>was a neighbour </i>to the man in distress? Thus, we should not be asking where our social obligations stop, but how far we can extend the love God has shown us. The implication is clear: my social obligations extend to <i>everyone</i>, friend or foe, stranger or brother.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I expect that most Christadelphian readers will agree with everything in the last three paragraphs. Here then comes the crucial question. When we look at our community or society—whether local, national, or global—what do we see? If we have grasped Jesus' parable, we should see <i>neighbours</i> by the thousands, millions, and billions. We should see humans made in the image of God, with inherent dignity and worth equal to our own. Consequently, we should discern a neighbourly duty to love <i>everyone</i> in our society. This entails actively seeking the good of everyone. How can one individual possibly do this? The answer is, we can fulfil our neighbourly duty to love everyone by <i>working for the common good</i>, as far as we are able.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How do we do that? Every disciple should seek to use his/her profession to change the world for the better insofar as s/he is able. A teacher educates and inspires young people so that they will grow into good citizens. A truck driver helps to keep society fed and clothed by the efficient movement of goods. And what about a police officer or a lawyer? What about a voter or a demonstrator? We have already noted that the State has been established by God for the purpose of promoting and protecting the common good. Thus, by contributing to the effectiveness of the State and its laws, we are contributing to the common good, and fulfilling the second great commandment that sums up the law of God!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A democracy is a form of government that depends on the diligent and conscientious participation of citizens. A democratic State cannot function without our voices and our votes any more than it can function without our taxes. Paul says that payment of taxes is obligatory for believers, because it enables the State to fulfill its God-given ministry (Rom. 13:6). For believers who are citizens of a democratic country, voting is obligatory for the same reason. There is no question that casting a vote—or any other political activity, such as peaceful demonstration against some social injustice—contributes to the common good when done conscientiously. The same is true of litigation.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-14" id="ref-footnote-14">14</a> If I neglect to do what I know is good, it is sin (Jas 4:17).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Christian's heavenly citizenship and sojourner status does not require him/her to stand apart from society. Such a position tends toward indifference to the welfare of our neighbours.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-15" id="ref-footnote-15">15</a> When believers vote or otherwise participate in affairs of law and State, they are not declaring that their kingdom is of this world, nor naïvely believing that some Christian utopia is achievable in the present age. Rather, they are seeking to shine the light of God's goodness into every dark corner of this world and its misery. To stand aloof from such matters is to hide that light under a bushel (Matt. 5:14-15).<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-16" id="ref-footnote-16">16</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#oname5" name="osec5">Objections Considered</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="#oname5_1" name="osec5_1">"What if my vote is contrary to God's will?"</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another commonly cited Christadelphian reason for not voting is that our vote might go against God's will. Jim Luke makes the argument thus:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">With issues such as education, the economy, the family, indigenous and foreign affairs, water, global warming etc., about which we may well have an opinion and preference, we must not forget that these matters belong to the governments of this day and that we are 'strangers and pilgrims' awaiting the coming of the Lord... So rather than becoming anxious about the outcome, we can rest in the knowledge that the Father is in control and that His will will be done. So whoever becomes prime minister and whatever party is voted into power, we will witness God's will being done. We must remain detached from the election and not vote, for we may place our weight behind someone whom God has not chosen if we do.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-17" id="ref-footnote-17">17</a></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This argument reflects a faulty understanding of God's will. Consider the hypothetical scenario of a democratic election featuring two candidates, A (who is clearly good) and B (who is clearly evil). First, I do not know which candidate (if any) God has chosen. If I vote for A, motivated by love of neighbour (seeking the common good), my vote is in accordance with the antecedent will of God, and I do well.<a class="footnote" href="#footnote-18" id="ref-footnote-18">18</a> If the consequent will of God is that candidate B wins, I am still blameless, and my vote for A has not frustrated God's plan. If I suspect that God's consequent will is for B to win, and I therefore vote for B, I have fallen into the error of "doing evil that good may come of it" (Rom. 3:8). If I refrain from voting, this decision still impacts the election (voter turnout swings elections!), and I am neglecting to promote the good and oppose the evil, which is sin (Jas 4:17). Of course, in reality the voter's choice is often murkier than good vs. evil, but the principle is still the same: if we vote according to conscience after due diligence, we do well.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, in what area of life besides politics would we consider it rational to do nothing lest we might go against God? Suppose your child comes down with some disease. Maybe God wills that the child recover quickly, but maybe God wills that the child suffer greatly or even die. You don't know which it is. Would you therefore refrain from seeking medical treatment, in case this is contrary to the outcome God wills? Is the morally safe option to do nothing but sit back and "witness God's will being done"? Of course not. You would seek the best treatment possible, and even if the child died you would regard yourself as having done the right thing.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The argument "vote not, lest you vote contrary to God's will" essentially boils down to "Do nothing lest you might offend God." This bears resemblance to the attitude of the "lazy servant" in the Parable of the Talents, who buries his talent in the earth out of fear that he might mess up if he exercises the responsibilities entrusted to him by his master (Matt. 25:14-30).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <b><a href="#oname5_2" name="osec5_2">"Put no trust in princes"</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Have I failed to notice what a dirty and acrimonious business politics is, or how the practice of law is more about greed than justice? Isn't it much better just to stay above the fray and leave everything to God? After all, Scripture instructs us not to place our trust in princes (Psalm 146:3). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Again, it is precisely because politics and law are so often characterised by dishonesty and corruption that Christian witness is needed in these areas. Are lawyers greedy and opportunistic? Show the world what a just lawyer looks like. Are police officers racially biased and trigger-happy? Show the world how to truly protect and serve. It may not result in utopia, but it will make a difference. To eschew politics and law because there are bad politicians and lawyers is no more defensible than to eschew teaching and truck driving because there are bad teachers and truck drivers. Christians should always retain a healthy suspicion of political power, but to simply eschew politics and leave it to others is not the behaviour that best accords with love of all our neighbours near and far.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Voting in an election in no way suggests a lack of faith. Yes, God is finally in control of all things, and the Christian prays for those in authority regardless of who they are (1 Tim. 2:1-2). However, this does not excuse us from exercising the stewardship that God delegates to his creatures. We trust in God for our material needs, but we still work for a living, realising that our livelihood may be the means by which God provides for us. Faith and action are complementary, not contradictory.</div><br /><br/>
<ul>
<li id="footnote-1"><a href="#ref-footnote-1">1</a> One can mention Christadelphian charities like <a href="https://www.agapeinaction.com/" target="_blank">Agape in Action</a>, <a href="http://meal-a-day.org/" target="_blank">Christadelphian Meal-a-Day</a>, and <a href="https://wcfoundation.org/">Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation</a>, and Christadelphian founders of charities like Marcus McGilvray of <a href="http://whizzkidsunited.org/">WhizzKids United</a>, my good friend and former boss. The passion of Christadelphians in Durban, South Africa for community outreach made a great impression on me.</li>
<li id="footnote-2"><a href="#ref-footnote-2">2</a> Christadelphians have taken a stand of conscience against military service, sometimes at considerable personal cost. Christadelphians have a special love for the Jewish people, and this has manifested itself in heroic acts such as Christadelphian involvement in the <i>Kindertransport </i>during World War Two, as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Part-Family-Christadelphians-Kindertransport-Holocaust-ebook/dp/B01FPAA5P4" target="_blank">documented</a> by Christadelphian writer Jason Hensley.</li>
<li id="footnote-3"><a href="#ref-footnote-3">3</a> This is not disavowed in the Statement of Faith, and there is some diversity of opinion among Christadelphians on the subject, but writings such as C. T. Butler's <i><a href="https://www.christadelphianvault.net/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=The%20Disciple%20of%20Christ%20and%20Trade%20Unions.pdf&directory=BibleDocs/Christadelphian%20Books%20-%20Miscellaneous&" target="_blank">The Disciple of Christ and Trade Unions</a></i> come out against it.</li>
<li id="footnote-4"><a href="#ref-footnote-4">4</a> This is not disavowed in the Statement of Faith, but numerous Christadelphian writers come out against it.</li>
<li id="footnote-5"><a href="#ref-footnote-5">5</a> See Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, <a href="http://christadelphia.org/reject.php"><i>Doctrines to be Rejected</i></a> 35-36.</li>
<li id="footnote-6"><a href="#ref-footnote-6">6</a> "[O]n the day we are baptised we say goodbye to the country of our birth. From that point onward, we are citizens of God's kingdom. No longer is our loyalty to Russia or America or England, but to Jesus our king. In a figure of speech, our position becomes that of aliens—people who live in a country but have a different nationality" (David M. Pearce, <a href="http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/english/pearce_david_m_christadelphiansandthestate.htm" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">Christadelphians and the State</a>). Again, "we are 'strangers and pilgrims' awaiting the coming of the Lord and the establishment of his beneficent reign in which all nations will be blessed, and 'all nations shall call him blessed' (Psa 72:17)" (Jim Luke, <a href="https://thelampstand.com.au/christ-and-politics/" target="_blank">Christ and Politics</a>, <i>The Lampstand</i>, 13(5) [2007]).</li>
<li id="footnote-7"><a href="#ref-footnote-7">7</a> Jim Cowie, <i>Conscientious Objection to Military Service: A Manual Designed to Assist Christadelphian Young People Facing the Prospect of a National Service Call-Up </i>(Hawthorndene, South Australia: Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1999), 16.</li>
<li id="footnote-8"><a href="#ref-footnote-8">8</a> Harry Tennant, <i><a href="https://www.bibleqld.com.au/christ-and-protest/" target="_blank">Christ and Protest</a></i>.</li>
<li id="footnote-9"><a href="#ref-footnote-9">9</a> David M. Pearce, <i><a href="http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/english/pearce_david_m_christadelphiansandthestate.htm" target="_blank">Christadelphians and the State</a>. </i>The full quotation is as follows: "Since we are told by Paul that the government of the country where we live has been set there by God, we cannot take part in revolutions or demonstrations or strikes in an attempt to bring about change. It is important to note that Jesus lived under Roman rule, and suffered with his fellow countrymen from the occupation of his country. Nevertheless, he did nothing to overthrow Roman rule. When Pilate questioned him as to his political status, he insisted that though he was a king, his kingdom did not belong to this world. That is a useful pointer for us – our kingdom is not of this world. It will come, when God is ready. Paul has a similar ruling in the passage we have already looked at : Romans 13 v1,2 ‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.’ It is for the same reason Christadelphians are not at liberty to vote in elections to appoint government officers, whether in local elections or national ones. We have to adopt the position of aliens. During an election, a person from another country is not allowed to take part in the voting. Hce lives in the country, but has no part in its affairs."</li>
<li id="footnote-10"><a href="#ref-footnote-10">10</a> Jim Cowie, <i>Conscientious Objection</i>, 4.</li>
<li id="footnote-11"><a href="#ref-footnote-11">11</a> Cowie, <i>Conscientious Objection</i>, 16-17.</li>
<li id="footnote-12"><a href="#ref-footnote-12">12</a> The Catholic Church upholds the "just war theory" developed by the Church Fathers, under which war may be justly waged when all of a narrow set of circumstances are met. Within the context of just war theory, soldiers who "carry out their duty honorably" do "truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (<i>Catechism of the Catholic Church </i>2310); thus military service does fall under the moral argument of this article. It should be noted that the Catholic Church also defends the right of conscientious objection: "Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way" (<i>Catechism of the Catholic Church </i>2311). I am sympathetic to conscientious objection since I do not believe that most wars waged by nations are either just or oriented to the common good of humanity. I believe that conscientious objection to military service makes sense on humanitarian grounds but am unenthused by Cowie's statement that "Our conscientious objection to military service does not spring from natural feelings of revulsion towards war or a sense of humanitarian compassion" (<i>Conscientious Objection</i>, 3).</li>
<li id="footnote-13"><a href="#ref-footnote-13">13</a> To name a few examples, these might include voting, participating in nonviolent demonstrations, contributing to political discourse, participating in community forums, serving with election oversight organisations, running for political office, practicing law, bringing litigation, or serving on a jury. Although involvement in labour unions and striking does not necessarily involve the State and its laws, the moral argument contained here easily extends to such issues as well.</li>
<li id="footnote-14"><a href="#ref-footnote-14">14</a> Litigation should not be framed in terms of financial self-interest; litigation can establish a legal precedent that promotes some justice or eradicates an injustice. Think, for instance, of <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a> </i>in the United States. A litigant who sought to avoid any possibility of financial self-interest could always pledge to donate any damages awarded.</li>
<li id="footnote-15"><a href="#ref-footnote-15">15</a> Cowie, anticipating this, argues that Christadelphians' detachment from politics does not "bespeak a lack of concern for the distressed state of the world and is inhabitants," because the true Christadelphian eagerly anticipates the end of all human suffering after the return of Christ (<i>Conscientious Objection</i>, 19). However, merely hoping for the eventual resolution of the world's problems is inadequate (see Jas 2:15-16).</li>
<li id="footnote-16"><a href="#ref-footnote-16">16</a> To say this is not to preach a "social gospel" instead of the gospel of salvation. The Church's primary mission is to save souls, but just as Jesus both healed bodies and instructed minds, so his body the Church must attend to both corporal and spiritual works of mercy.</li>
<li id="footnote-17"><a href="#ref-footnote-17">17</a> Jim Luke, <i>Christ and Politics</i>. Similarly, Cowie: "Could it not be that we may vote for someone whom God wills not to place in power"? (<i>Conscientious Objection</i>, 19).</li>
<li id="footnote-18"><a href="#ref-footnote-18">18</a> Theologians distinguish between the antecedent and consequent will of God. As part of his antecedent will, God wills that all humans be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), but this does not mean that all are saved, because this outcome may conflict with other realities willed by God, such as free will. Thus, God's consequent will may be that not all humans are saved. This does <i>not</i>, however, mean that we should refrain from evangelising, in case someone is converted whom God does not intend to save! Coming to politics, God's antecedent will is surely that governments rule justly. In his consequent will, God permits wicked rulers like Pontius Pilate and Hitler, perhaps in order to accomplish some higher purpose (e.g., the atoning death of Jesus), and/or as an act of judgment that respects the free will of the evildoers who put them in power.</li>
</ul>
</div>Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16671380367019506667noreply@blogger.com4Cape Town, South Africa-33.9248685 18.4240553-62.235102336178848 -16.7321947 -5.6146346638211568 53.5803053